CHABOT COLLEGE ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE
R e g u l a r Meeting
Board Room, Building 200
Thursday, October 25, 2007 – 2:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
A P P R O V E D M I N UT E S
Submitted by Nancy Cowan and Ming Ho
Senators
Applied Technology & Business — Michael Absher
Arts & Humanities — Bill Johnson
Counseling — Rachel Aziminia & Dara Greene
Health, Physical Education, & Athletics — Nancy Cowan
Language Arts — Susan Gill & Francisco Zermeño
Library — Norman Buchwald (alternate)
Science & Mathematics — Dave Fouquet & Ming Ho
Social Sciences — Michael Thompson & Susan Tong
Part-time Faculty — Anne Brichacek
Ex-Officios
ASCC — Jove Meyer, Vice President
CLPFA — Shari Jacobsen, Membership Coordinator
Academic/Faculty Senate Immediate Past President — Chad Mark Glen
Guests
Ron Taylor, Vice President of Academic Services
Barbara Ogman, Chair of Student Learning Outcome and Assessment Committee
Presiding Officer
President Diane Zuliani
ITEM
1.0 GENERAL FUNCTIONS
1.1 Call to Order: President Zuliani called the meeting to order at 2:20 p.m.
1.2 Approval of the Minutes: M/S/C that the minutes of October 11, 2007, as amended, be
approved.
2.0
REPORTS
2.1 Senate President: President Zuliani’s prepared statement is below in italics, with Senator
remarks interweaved:
Faculty Hiring Prioritization—There was a discussion as to whether we are moving
institutionally towards replacing retiring full-time positions with adjunct positions. This is less
expensive financially for the college, but according to the AAUP, it may be costly in other ways.
First year retention rates drop in colleges with a high proportion of part-time to full-time faculty.
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE APPROVED MINUTES
October 25, 2007
Accreditation—Dmitriy and I are co-chairing Standard IV on Leadership and Governance. As
you know, the new standards are evidence-based, that is, they ask not for us to respond to
questions about what is being done and not being done, but for evidentiary proof of what is
being done, and the lack of evidence standing for proof of that which is not being done. This is
mainly a burden for teaching faculty, as the evidence required is mainly for learning outcomes,
but the language of evidence is not entirely absent from other parts of the standards. So while it
is true that, as an instructor, I need to provide proof of learning outcomes, I believe that it will be
my job as co-chair of Standard IV that I make sure my administrators provide proof of what I am
going to call “leadership outcomes.”
SLOAC—I’ve provided some reading material for you: a notice in the New York Times about
Harvard’s new president, Drew Faust, who has taken a solidly anti-SLO position; and an excerpt
from a local syllabus, written by an instructor at the San Francisco Art Institute, who is
responding harshly to SFAI’s disingenuously using WASC standards to force all faculty to create
standardized syllabi, complete with student learning outcomes, to be approved by the
administration. Actually, WASC standards don’t say anything of the kind. That would never have
happened here, but I did feel that some folks did seem to want to define our outcomes process
for us. Anyway, the instructor’s response is worth reading.
College Council— Dr. Carlson is endorsing a plan whereby qualified juniors and seniors from
San Lorenzo high schools, which have no AP program, take classes at Chabot, allowing them to
“simultaneously graduate from high school AND be ready to transfer.” This is not being called
“concurrent enrollment,” and is not the same as the “young minors” program, but more like the
Berkeley “Early Outreach Opportunity” program. Gerald Shimada is the contact person on this.
Senator Gill asked how we could receive clarification and give input to Gerald Shimada
about the proposal from the high school. The recommendation was that we ask him for further
information and to give him our feedback.
Rachel Ugale, President of the Classified Senate, is initiating a change to their designation
from “classified staff” to “professionals.” This move was prompted by two things: (1) the
Academic Senate apparently made an appeal two or so years ago for a change in faculty
designation from “instructor” to “professor” and (2) in a private conversation, she described a
pervasive feeling among staff that they are, on the whole, under-appreciated. We all hear this
from time to time—we all have—and I actually think this tension exists on every campus. I can’t
say that I think the shift from “staff” to “professional” will have the desired effect, but I have seen
condescending behavior from faculty towards staff with my own eyes (and yes, it does go both
ways), but in light of our call for civility on campus, let us remember to respect and express our
gratitude to all of those on campus who help us do what we need to do.
Senator Aziminia stated that she had also observed poor treatment of what is now known as
classified staff
Budget—even though the hard copy budget looks perfectly balanced, we are somewhere
between half a million and a million and a half dollars under budget.
Senator Fouquet clarified the disparity between the given budget and what we actually
receive to spend. Senator Absher says that he disagrees with the numbers. Senator Aziminia
2
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE APPROVED MINUTES
October 25, 2007
disagrees with the claim that there is not enough money. It is her understanding that Chabot
College has $12 million in reserve. How the District decides to distribute the money and fund the
college’s needs has been typically the problem. Absher said his take at this time was that both
colleges are “below zero” (zero-based budgeting). District-wide he believes we are “ok” but the
entities producing the money do not receive (on paper) what they expect. Fouquet believes this
“deficit’ comes out of an increasingly conservative stance in how the money is allocated. He
said that he would be talking with Chancellor J. Kinnamon about this. He also expressed that the
District made a big mistake canceling a lot of classes this fall. We should not have been so
aggressive in cutting classes. It was an opportunity lost in terms of money. Absher also noted
that this subject was very volatile at this time.
Presidential Search Committee—First, I confirmed with search consultant Pamela Fisher that
HR does not weed the stack of non-bona fide candidates. Second, I wanted to share this with
you: I contacted Zack Papachristos after he came to speak at Senate, to ask him if he wanted to
meet with me in person to talk about his concerns, and also to share his take on what
characteristics he would want to see in a new president of Chabot. It was clear from his talk here
that he really cares about this issue. Zack called me back, and we met earlier this week. He
had prepared a list of carefully articulated traits he believes are key in the next Chabot
President, and I think he was somewhat surprised to hear my full agreement with his every point.
He mentioned proper use rather than misuse of power, the critical importance of trust and
respect, and an attitude of service (instead of domination) on the part of the president. I am
grateful for his comments. I also learned that the Classified Senate took time in a meeting to
discuss the characteristics they valued. While I don’t think we have the luxury to do that, I do
invite you to send me an email with your thoughts. If you get it to me by the 1st of November,
that’s before the applications are due, I will share your thoughts with the faculty representatives.
Facilities: CB/WB—I have got to get the % of whiteboard to chalkboard in building 500 to
Doug Horner ASAP.
In Building 500, it was decided that the rooms should be half chalkboards and half
whiteboards. Senator Fouquet said we needed to review the plans before “planning” for how
these boards are distributed.
A Note About Today’s Agenda—I invited Dr. Carlson to come to Senate to discuss his
position on the plants, but he declined. He said he would wait for the Board to state a position
on the matter before he states any individual position of his own, so he and the Board can
together establish a position they both support.
[End of prepared statement.]
2.2 ASCC: Tabled due to Jove Meyer’s absence.
2.3 CLPFA: Senator Fouquet stated that CLPFA was “cleaning up” the contract and would be
working on the “F” hour and coaching staff issues. He said the “penultimate” PDF version of the
contract was developed and the final version would be on-line soon. President Zuliani asked if
there was going to be a problem with the “F” hour. Fouquet said that the “F” hour is not an
instructional hour. Individual arrangements may need to be made about the CAH. If it is outside
of the contractual bounds, some arrangements may not be possible to be made.
3
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE APPROVED MINUTES
October 25, 2007
2.4 Senators
IP President Glen recently attended a Academic Senate Region B meeting. He shared the
item that would be of special interest, a resolution to explore expanding concurrent enrollment at
high school and community college. [Insert resolution here.]
Glen read the resolution and indicated that the resolution only calls for a study to gather the
facts about the issue of concurrent enrollment. Senator Absher commented that in his Division,
the issue is a point of contention, particularly in the CTE, as the insurance for and liability of
minors are important concerns. Senator Johnson also commented about his experience with
the lack of maturity in some high school students in his college journalism class. Senator Ho
asked what could motivate such a resolution. Absher supplied an example regarding vocational
education: As most high schools retreat from providing vocational education, expanding
concurrent enrollment is a way for the community college to capture those enrollment. On the
other hand, the community colleges should not be taking on the responsibility of high schools.
Ho responded that, in light of Absher’s example, the issue of concurrent enrollment should be
dealt with at the local level, not at a statewide level. President Zuliani said she thought that
expanding faculty voice was appropriate but that action/implementation statewide might not be.
Senators Thompson and Ho agree. Glen noted that he understands Chabot Senate’s concern.
At regional and statewide meetings, he would advocate for the State Senate to gather
information on this issue of concurrent enrollment but would curtail resolutions seeking to
expand concurrent enrollment statewide until faculty has been provided with the information
about its impact. Absher noted that when concurrent enrollment first began, it was not governed
by faculty voice, and after several problems we were told, “Here is what you have to do.” Many
problems resulted from this. He believes that many people (not faculty) are pushing this and
that we need to have faculty voice as not to repeat what happened before.
2.5 Public Comments
Diane Zuliani’s prepared statement follows:
In addition to delivering my Senate report to the Board, I also spoke during the public
comments portion of the meeting, because I had learned that we had a rapidly closing window
for some needed action. I gave the Board members the map I have given you, delineating the
location of the two proposed power plants, with Chabot as the maximum impacted receptor
center. I told the Board that Chabot as a whole knows very little about these proposals and that
I am deeply disappointed that campus leaders chose not to share what they knew with us. I told
them that, as a Board of Trustees, they are in fact an independent agent of the State of
California with a right to be properly notified on an issue of this sort. Tthe fact that they
themselves were only just learning of these power plants was a sign that something has gone
terribly wrong. I told them that, once a plant has received its final approval, groups have a
window of exactly thirty days to file a formal, legal declaration. In the case of the Russell City
Energy Center, if such a declaration was not in the hands of the CEC within 30 days from the
date of approval, we (Chabot or our District) would have no right to bring a case or file an
appeal. I urged them to retain counsel and file such a declaration. The thirty day deadline was
yesterday [Oct. 24, 2007], which was just over a week away from the day I spoke to the Board.
After the Board meeting, they entered closed session and came back a short while later with a
unanimous vote approving the decision to file a declaration, which, I am happy to report, has
4
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE APPROVED MINUTES
October 25, 2007
already been sent. This may not help us avoid these plants ultimately, but without this document
in place, we truly would have no recourse at all.
Last night’s public hearing was very well attended by the community, not so well attended by
the power companies, though there was a representative from the Air Board, one from the
Energy Commission. Other notable attendees were Barbara Halliday form the Hayward City
Council and Supervisor Gail Steele, who, along with the other Alameda County Supervisors, has
asked for a reconsideration of the Russell City Energy Center.
[End of prepared statement.]
3.0
ACTION ITEMS: No action items.
4.0
DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.1 Fall Semester SLO Requirements
Barbara Ogman reported that SLOA-C meetings has been held twice a month. Some
members attended a conferences related to student success. The Committee is in progress of
learning the E-Lumen software that helps with tracking and reporting SLO results. The software
will be implemented gradually after the Committee members learn to use it. A college-wide
workshop on writing SLO was held with small attendance but good work resulting from it. Ms.
Ogman has also done the same workshop at a Social Science Division meeting. The
accreditation process is requiring us to become active in developing SLOs. The Committee
decided on the following requirement for this Fall: Each discipline needs to write one SLO for
only one course. To date, the committee has received the work from only one discipline. To help
faculty make progress on SLOs, it was suggested that trainings take place during Division
meetings or a meeting with multiple Divisions concurrently. Concerns were raised about getting
Deans’ “buy-in.” Zuliani and Glen will draft a letter (or speak directly) to V.P. Ron Taylor that 45
minutes in Division meeting be used to collectively develop SLOs. Dr. Taylor will discuss with
the Deans about this idea.
Senator Absher wanted to know where the SLOs go when it’s done. Ms. Ogman wanted us
to help with this decision. She would like the Senate to decide to establish legitimacy of the
decision. Senator Johnson was concerned that all this work (and paper) would accumulate
somewhere and virtually be relegated to the non-important file, in which case he asks why we
should be doing this. Ogman said that the Accreditation body doesn’t tell us “what to do” but that
we comply by showing them what we have done with the result. If a faculty member turns in an
SLO that is imperfect, the Accreditation standards would not critique its “goodness” or
“badness.” Senator Ho mentioned that, in the process of assessing the SLO, if the faculty
realized that the SLO wasn’t written well, then revising it should count towards complying with
SLO work. Glen suggested that perhaps the SLOA Committee might also serve as a
consultant/feedback. Ogman responded that, while the committee would not be the arbiter of
good or bad SLOs, it would gladly work with faculty who want feedback on SLO work.
Ogman reported that the SLO website is up. There is money in the budget that could be
used to provide incentives for completing SLOs and asked for thoughts on that. Glen indicated
that the Senate and the Committee cooperatively work on the issue. Ogman looks forward to
invitation from Deans to train faculty at division meetings.
5
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE APPROVED MINUTES
October 25, 2007
4.2 Basic Skills/Assessment/Placement
Senator Ho had comments about the State Academic Senate President’s report on
assessment issues that IP President Glen sent out in late August. First, there is a difference
between assessment and placement: The former tells students what their area content
weaknesses are, and the latter tells them which classes they are allowed to take. While Ho
thinks that mandatory assessment/placement is a good idea, he does not see a need for a
common, uniform process across the state system of community colleges. Senator Azimina
concurred.
In contrast, the State BOG has directed its Chancellor “to begin the process of evaluating
the implementation of a system-wide uniform, common assessment” with consultation with
affected organizations. One reason for the BOG to take this action is to reduce the burden of
testing on students attending multiple community colleges simultaneously. However, Ho doesn’t
feel that is really such a big concern to call for common placement the state system. While
students may attend multiple community colleges, they start their math or English at one college.
Once they pass a course, that course articulates most likely to nearby colleges, so we no longer
need to be bothered with placement at that point. At Chabot, we currently have a system in
place to allow counselors to place students based on their college level work in English and
math from many other CCs. We also have prerequisite challenge by which a faculty reviews the
syllabus from another college to determine placement. Ho solicited feedback from other
Senators on the State Senate President’s report, an article to which the report cited, and his
comments.
Ho summarized highlights of Basic Skills Initiative meeting held on Oct. 12, at Santa Rosa
Junior College. Chabot sent a large team, including math and English faculty, Senate
representative, coordinators of various programs, and administrators. Organizers of the meeting
presented results of the research review what was conducted, which were summarized in the
booklet on basic skills that Senators received at the previous Senate meeting. The state will give
each college a minimum of $100,000 for basic skills if they conduct a self-assessment on its
basic skills programs. The funding is based on the number of basic skills, non-degree applicable
class we teach, though we could use the money for anything that is basic skills related. There
were some activities that orient the participants to the four major finding sections on
organizational and administrative practices, program components, staff development, and
institutional practices. Self-assessment tool and cost revenue tool were provided as a way to
start the self-assessment.
President Zuliani felt that we should form a Senate Basic Skills Committee to address
many issues regarding basic skills and that the committee should be a standing committee, not
ad-hoc. Glen asked what the basic skills parameters should be. Senator Zermeño noted that
perhaps a committee could hammer out the details and present it to the Senate. Aziminia said
that both conferences she recently attended indicated that the subject of basic skills extends to
many other subject areas beyond math and English.
Glen notes that forming a committee involves creating a framework indicating its mission,
charges, and membership. Aziminia believes that many representatives should be involved
besides simply English and Math. People suggested some relevant people that they thought
should be on the committee. Senator Absher said that IPBC has been working on the current
budget for Basic Skills Initiative (BSI) funds. It looks as if there is an ongoing issue. For instance,
when we get a new round of BSI fund, what should we do differently than we did last time?
Different organizations on campus working on basic skills shouldn’t “step on each others’ toes.”
6
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE APPROVED MINUTES
October 25, 2007
Senator Gill noted that often this is a subject that nothing has resulted from previous
discussions. She suggests that we seek “best practice” and not just concentrate on the money
we can obtain from participating in the statewide BSI. Ho said we already know what some
effective practices are from the literature review on research. What we need to do as an
institution is to look at the findings and ask “what do we want to do with respect to the findings?”
He feels that the faculty as a whole should examine and perhaps decide what ideas we would
like to support. A charge of the Basic Skills Committee would be to recommend to administrators
what and how the faculty thinks should be done. Senator Thompson thought forming the
committee was a good idea. On the other hand, there is a danger that we can turn ourselves into
a “basic skills college.” His Division does not want to do this. Without institutional support, the
idea will result in few students who are able to succeed in only some non-basic skills classes.
Azimina believes this dialogue should occur across the curriculum. Zuliani said that we need to
demonstrate a need for funding the courses/approaches for basic skills. Absher said that his
experience was that nobody has done anything about it. For example, the Assessment Center
should have hours at night and Saturdays, not just open during times convenient for transfer
students.
Decision was made that a group will write up a framework for a Basic Skills Committee to
be presented to Senate at the next meeting.
4.3 Letter of Civility. Tabled.
5.0
REPORTS II
5.1 Senators
Senator Absher reported that an article in a journal mentioned that the nation of Libya is
using curriculum from Chabot as part of the technology transfer agreement in exchange for it’s
giving up its nuclear arms production.
President Zuliani reported that K-12 teachers are able to offer less than one hour per week
of sciences because the “No Child Left Behind” testing requirements. As science does not count
for NCLB, schools are neglecting other subjects in order to raise test scores.
6.0 GOOD OF THE ORDER
6.1 Future Agenda items
6.1.1 Cameras in Labs; Banner Chart of Accounts — Farhad Javaheripour
6.1.2 Title V Curriculum Updates & AS Degree Report — Nolly Ruiz
6.1.3 New Directions for IPBC — Christina Ruggiero and Yvonne Wu-Craig
6.1.4 The “Greening” of Chabot — Francisco Zermeño
6.1.5 Textbook Expense — Kathleen Kaser
6.2 Adjournment at 4:30 PM. Next Meeting: October 25, 2007
6.3 Fall Meetings: 2nd & 4th Thursdays.
November 8 & 15*, December 6* & 20*.
(*Special Meetings not on 2nd or 4th Thursday)
NC/MLH/DZ
7