CHABOT COLLEGE ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE
R e g u l a r Meeting
Board Room, Building 200
Thursday, January, 25 2007 – 2:20 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
A P P R O V E D M I N UT E S
Submitted by Norman Buchwald and Chad Mark Glen
Senator Attendance: Applied Technology & Business (Michael Absher); Counseling (Rachel
Aziminia & Dara Greene); Health, Physical Education, & Athletics
(Nancy Cowan & Vacant); Arts & Humanities (Diane Zuliani);
Language Arts (Francisco Zermeño & Vacant); Library (Norman
Buchwald); Science & Mathematics (Dave Fouquet & Ming Ho); and
Social Sciences (Barbara Ogman & Michael Thompson); Adjunct
Faculty (Anne Brichacek).
Guests:
Dr. Ron Taylor (Vice President, Academic Services), Melinda
Matsuda (Vice President, Student Services), Dr. Carolyn Arnold
(Institutional Researcher and Grants Coordinator), Nolly Ruiz
(Curriculum Chair), Robert Lu (ASCC Vice President), Joe Kuwabara
(Counseling).
Presiding Officer:
President Chad Mark Glen.
ITEM
1.0 GENERAL FUNCTIONS
1.1 Call to Order: President Glen called the meeting to order at 2:20.
1.2 Approval of the Minutes: Rachel Aziminia moved to approve the
December 14, 2006 minutes and Barbara Ogman seconded. The
motion to approve carried with minor editing. There was further
discussion of approach to consistency on how people are referred in the
minutes (last name, first name, etc.).
1.3 Introduction of Guests and New Senator: Dara Greene is introduced by
President Glen and Counselor Joe Kuwabara. She is replacing Sally
Stickney who has needed to step down. Green is a new counselor and
she is doing a wonderful job. She Worked at City College of San
Francisco and in the Peralta District before coming to Chabot.
2.0 REPORT S
2.1 College President’s Report: Dr. Robert Carlson had two items. One is
the Accreditation process. The visit by the Accreditation team will occur
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
January 25th, 2007
during the Fall of 2009. This Spring, chairs of committees will discuss the
accreditation process. The Institutional Planning and Budgeting Council (IPBC)
will determine the group study and how it will be framed. The Self-Study will occur
next year and revisions of it will be made the following year. The final draft of the
Accreditation Report will be submitted in Spring 2009. The Academic Senate
needs to appoint a faculty chair or co-chair on this project. We need someone who
can handle the politics, have the right leadership, build consensus, write well, and
“speak well of us.” The position needs to go to someone who understands what
leadership is. President Carlson asks that in the choosing, that faculty think of the
character, and how well that person will work with all constituencies. President
Carlson has asked the Senate to be careful in the selection of this person. There
will be a three person team that includes VP of Student Services, Melinda
Matsuda, an advisor appointed by the College President (the advisor will do most
of the writing of the report), and the third would be the faculty representative. The
advisor would be someone who Carlson could recommend; someone outside the
college. The chair of the committee would be the faculty representative.
1.5 CAH reassigned time over three semesters will be available for the faculty
chair. The distribution of that reassigned time over the three semesters would
be up to the faculty chair. It could grow to 50% at critical times during the
accreditation process. The committee would meet from this Fall until the end of
the accreditation team visit. A Liaison/helper would be appointed to assist the
faculty member who will receive around 20% reassigned time.
This Spring all of the committee chairs and administrators will be discussing the
accreditation process. The student survey is already beginning to be drafted
and we will be seeking more input during this semester.
President Carlson asks the Chair to be an active member of IPBC. IPBC and
the accreditation committee would be working together very closely.
President Glen had 3 questions. One was about who would be the Advisory
support person. Dr. Carlson wants an administrative worker (someone maybe
retired from this college, District, or elsewhere). Dr. Carlson also commented
that this time around there are only Four Accreditation Standards. Standard
One is on Leadership/Background, and Standard Four is administrativeoriented. The two middle standards focus on students and academics. We
can write our report anyway we want, however. A couple schools used the
Baldrige standards, which our college started to, do at first this time around.
Others have used “Themes,” as well as other approaches. The time involved is
relatively five semesters. The leadership/committee structure should be in
place before the end of Spring.
President Glen asked Dr. Carlson when he would like the name of the chair.
Dr. Carlson would like us to have appointed a Chair with in a month.
2
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
January 25th, 2007
Barbara Ogman asked who appoints the faculty chair. President Glen said in
the past the faculty chair has been appointed by the Academic Senate and has
been past Senate Presidents, but the faculty chair does not have to be a
Senator. We could pursue a recruiting process if we want.
President Carlson’s second item is due to a recent lawsuit or settlement in the
state of California, the issue has been brought up on how well-trained
administration and faculty are with regard to harassment situations. The ruling
was anybody who has supervisory duties or is involved with hiring, which
includes faculty as well as administrators, needs the training. The District has
contracted with a legal firm to provide the training, and faculty are being
requested to attend. Dr. Carlson believed that the Academic Senate should
make the case that faculty members should attend. There is a first training
scheduled with short notice, but the focus will be more towards administrative
staff. An option that will likely be available for faculty, will be the training
delivered through the Web, but faculty are welcome to attend the live training
sessions. The first live training session will occur on Wednesday, February 7th,
from 2:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. at LPC. Over the year there will be more training
sessions.
Barbara Ogman asked if there is a mandate for a certain amount of training
that is needed. Dr. Carlson said there’s different requirements, etc. for each
institution. Once you attend one, you are done for the training requirement.
Melinda Matsuda thinks there needs to be more awareness that the mandate
is for harassment, not just sexual harassment. All faculty and administrators
are required to report when we know of a particular incident to help prevent
harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in an academic environment. This
is mandated statewide. Faculty to faculty discrimination has more recently
become a bigger issue as well as seniority, property rights, and tenure.
President Carlson was asked if classified staff members are also required to
attend the training sessions, since they sit on hiring committees? Carlson said
he didn’t know. Barbara Ogman asked that faculty obtain their training during
the work day, rather than on their own time.
David Fouquet had a question for Dr. Carlson. Recently, in a Calendar
Committee meeting, Las Positas College representatives made a motion for a
16 week calendar. What are President Carlson’s thoughts? Dr. Carlson
answered, “Not much. There’s just been dialogue.” Dr. Carlson would rather
we have a 12 week calendar. He thinks a 12 week semester has potential (he
claimed a nursing program at San Diego City that used such a time frame
turned out to be successful).
3
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
January 25th, 2007
2.2 ASCC Report: ASCC Vice President, Robert Lu said a blood drive would be
taking place the following Monday. „February 13 is the day for the Spring Club
Rush. He asked advisors to clubs to participate. „Senators of ASCC will be
participating on Flex-Day, and they are planning future events. „They will not
have a speaker series, but organizations will be invited to speak on topics. Clubs
will also be sponsoring events as well. „More co-curricular programs are coming
up and the ASCC will work in a committee on proposals for such programs. „Mr.
Lu mentioned a special meeting on the academic calendar and on college hour the
previous day. He thought the Calendar was already voted on. They voted on
option A. They are for adding more classes at 12. There apparently are students
not pleased about college hour not being as free for clubs.
2.3 Senate President’s Report: Chad Mark Glen deferred his report so there would
be more time for other agenda items.
2.4 CLPFA: Dave Fouquet reported that the Faculty Association and the District are
still working on “tweaking the contract.” They will be meeting for all day sessions
Friday and Saturday (January 26 - 27). This Spring, they will be piloting the
instructor evaluation form for faculty reaching online. The Faculty Association is
still asking the District to finalize the salary schedule. Some changes kicked in on
July 1 (regarding hourly, pro-rata pay, etc.) while others at the beginning of Fall.
There is an issue regarding class start-finishing times (Tab stops for block
scheduling). Start and end times of classes can overlap. One issue regarding
the building remodeling is what is feasible with respect to class scheduling
while the construction is being done. The chancellor asked for a District-wide
meeting on this subject and wants Senate representation (as well as FA reps).
Fouquet would like Jim Matthews to be there (given his expertise on this
issue).
Las Positas College is pushing for 16 week calendars. Robert Lu asked about
16 weeks. What impact does it have for a student? When we did it before, it
was an hour and ¾ for a course. This scheduling brought challenges for clubs,
etc. at College Hour. A 5 unit class would only allow students five minutes to
get to the next class, thus the reason for tab stops. There are also issues
regarding collecting instruction minutes with regards to WISCH, etc.
President Glen brought up issues of the highest rating is “Satisfactory” for
faculty on the evaluation form. Dave Fouquet said there was some type of
issue as “grade inflation”—Satisfactory is satisfactory, while needs
improvement means to be improved (which is not the same as unsatisfactory).
4
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
January 25th, 2007
2.5 Public Comments: None.
3.0
ACTION ITEMS
3.1 eLumen Assessment Software. Barbara Ogman moved to approve the piloting
of following eLumen Assessment Software resolution and Rachel Aziminia
seconded. The motion to approve carried.
Although the Academic Senate has not embraced the concept
of SLOs, we’re not opposed to piloting the eLumen Assessment
software.
•
•
Our concerns include:
The ongoing costs to the college, and
Insuring confidentiality.
We suggest the continued exploration of other Assessment
software options.
DISCUSSION: We can pilot the use of this assessment software while piloting
SLOs. We can always reject it if we don’t like it. The District is willing to fund
it, and they are already paying for LPC’s use of it. The software is not that
expensive. The faculty who choose to pilot the software, will then have
feedback to pick this or use another software. Dr. Carolyn Arnold had said she
would figure out a way for the inputting work to be done. One said she would
be interested in taking part of this project. We are making it clear this is a pilot,
we will not bear the brunt of the cost and confidentiality is guaranteed to the
faculty involved. When we recommend the item, is this the only product being
considered or are there other options being looked at? The Academic Senate
feels we should really have a chance to look at the software without making a
strong recommendation—just saying go for it, but be neutral. We are also not
opposed, just neutral. Rachel Aziminia said it is important that we have some
input and control of the data. Concerns that were voiced include cost and
ongoing costs, confidentiality, and being able to explore other options than to
just being committed to this one, individual software. Barbara Ogman said
we’re not quite endorsing, and she reminded the Senate that we have not even
agreed to embrace SLOs as of yet. We are still in that discussion. The district
did buy a site license for Las Positas College. Dr. Ron Taylor said the District
is looking for a district-wide license. Rachel Aziminia wanted to know how
much we are spending for the site license. Dr. Taylor believes it is $12K for
LPC and $15 or $16K for the two colleges. It is a yearly cost.
5
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
4.0
January 25th, 2007
DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.1 Nike Site $500,000 for Campus Art: Dr. Taylor submitted a report to the Board
of Trustees. It was tabled (by the Board of Trustees) so that it could be brought
before the Senate and other constituencies. The request made is that the report
be reviewed and given more specifics, especially with respect to multiculturalism
and diversity. The Nike Site is a piece of land near Lake Chabot that was owned
by the college. It was sold years ago for a couple of million dollars. The Board of
Trustees stated that each college can spend $500,000 with respect to art (that also
has respect to multiculturalism and diversity). Nolly Ruiz said the land was an old
missile silo when it was sold. Back then, there were concerns raised as to whether
the monies from the sale would be going to Chabot and how much. The monies
are being distributed half and half to each college. Dr. Taylor has asked the
Academic Senate to review this document and bring back to Divisions. One idea
includes a student generated mural. A point was brought up that these works of
art be visible in high-traffic areas. Barbara Ogman had questions about the site?
Do we no longer own it? Dr. Taylor answered that the site has been sold, but
there is an agreement on the deed that if we want to use it for educational
purposes. Robert Lu said the ASCC brought up the grant for campus art. They
want to get student input on this also. There may need to be a committee formed
to determine the art that gets purchased or commissioned. President Glen asked
faculty members to submit their interests to their Senate reps. who can then bring it
to President Glen.
4.2 AS Degree Revision Implementation and Timeline: A third bullet has been
added to the timeline entitled “Draft the AS and AA degree philosophy”. Someone
had concerns that it was a bit ambitious. The timeline will now go to the
Curriculum Committee. One issue will be to clarify the issue regarding the 3 unit
program determined GE. The timeline and the new version of the AS Degree
implementation were drafted right before Winter Break. It will be brought before
the Senate as an action item at the next meeting. Rachel Aziminia asked if the
Board approved the new AS degree GE requirements in December. Nolly Ruiz
was not sure. Aziminia asked what if a student leaves for a long time and the
requirements of the AS degree change, do they still have catalog rights from their
previous enrollment? Usually, if a student is gone for over a semester, the student
is under a new catalog, with the exception of case by case basis/solutions. The
next Curriculum meeting is February 6, so there will be time and opportunity to
make some tweaks, etc. before the timeline appears before the Academic Senate
and we’ll have time and opportunity to make some more tweaks/revisions, etc.
Ruiz recommends the document should be ready for the Senate to review at our
next meeting on February 8. The District Curriculum Council is currently drafting
the AA/AS degree philosophy. Aziminia asked why there is a distinction of
6
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
January 25th, 2007
difference of GE units between both degrees.
Why are they not the same?
President Glen mentioned that it can be stated in the philosophy that the AA
degree can be used/geared towards transfer whereas AS degrees typically are not.
The AS degrees frequently have more major units than many AA degrees.
Sometimes there are both the AA and AS degrees offered by a particular
discipline/program. In general, the disciplines determine the AA and AS degrees.
Aziminia said that when on the previous AS Degree Committee years ago, she
thinks the committee may not have thought fully through due to there being no
difference of AA and AS GE. Students ask questions all the time now as to why
there is a difference. Ming Ho said that the purpose for the less GE required units
in AS degrees is to provide breathing room as such degrees are higher in units
with respect to the major. It would be more constructive to promote to students the
AA and AS degrees. Some options include more for major courses to justify AA
and AS degrees when it is in the same program. The Senators are asked to bring
the timeline of the implementation back to the Divisions. It will be an Action item
on the February 8 agenda.
4.3 Learning Assessment: SLOs are going to be called Learning Assessments.
Nolly Ruiz stated that State Chancellor Drummond says that assessment is not
going away despite who is in office. The accreditation teams need more than just
claims that we are assessing student learning. The institutions are asked to
provide concrete evidence of the assessments. The eLumen assessment software
can help provide the evidence and ease the burden of collecting and compiling the
data. There was also discussion of documenting evidence of dialogue on
“Learning Assessments.” President Glen said he has been referencing internet
sites and cutting and pasting Emails into one document when discussing this
subject with colleagues. Ruiz said that colleges across the state have struggled
with this issue. All groups are putting materials on the Web. All of the colleges
have given others permission to use the materials they have posted.
Norman Buchwald moved that we extend the meeting by 10 minutes. The motion
was seconded and passed at 4:28 p.m.
4.4 Administrator Evaluations: President Glen said that we need copies of forms
mentioned in the handouts of the evaluations in order for us to comment upon
them. There is a question as to who evaluates whom. Dr. Ron Taylor, as the
Deans' boss, would determine who would participate in evaluating the Dean an
employee reports to. There was a suggestion that it be clearer who is going to be
a survey participant. The Academic Senate will take a look at the latest multi-rater
survey. With respect to the flowchart and schedules, where is the written process
for this? As for the issue of KH taking part of the collecting and disseminating of
the surveys, President Carlson talked with Dr. Cota about maintaining
confidentiality with an instrument such as Survey Monkey, etc. without an outside
consultation entity. Dave Fouquet asked how this survey would be conducted
annually vs. the other survey conducted every three years as last time--how well
would this be conducted more effectively, timely? President Glen said there will be
7
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
January 25th, 2007
a more uniform process that would allow for a more comprehensive three year
evaluation. The tri-annual comprehensive would be more qualitative vs. the annual
which would be more quantitative. Classified and academic managers will be
evaluated underneath this process. The blank survey should be posted soon. We
should share the current draft of the evaluation with our divisions before February
8. The evaluation timeline was submitted to Academic Senators on paper only.
5.0
REPORTS II
5.1 Senate Committees: No reports.
5.3 Senators: No reports.
6.0
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
At-Large Faculty Vote on Senate Constitution Changes— Chad Mark Glen;
District Faculty Hire Procedures— Chad Mark Glen;
Minimum Qualifications Equivalencies for Faculty— Chad Mark Glen;
Faculty Working With ASCC to Publicize Events— Curtis Ballard.
Accreditation Self-Study Faculty Chair— Chad Mark Glen
Meeting adjourned at 4:45 PM.
Next Meeting— February 8, 2007
Spring Meetings— 2nd & 4th Thursdays.
February 22, March 8 & 22, April 5* & 26, May 10.
(*Special Meetings— not on 2nd or 4th Thursday)
N B /CM G
8