CHABOT COLLEGE ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE
S p e c i a l Meeting
Board Room, Building 200
Thursday, November 30, 2006– 2:24 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
A P P R O V E D M I N UT E S
Submitted by Ming Ho and Chad Mark Glen
Senator Attendance: Applied Technology & Business (Michael Absher); Counseling (Sally
Stickney & Rachel Aziminia); 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), Jane Church
(Articulation Officer), and Dr. Carolyn Arnold (Institutional Researcher
and Grants Coordinator).
Presiding Officers:
President Chad Mark Glen, Vice President Michael Absher.
ITEM
1.0 GENERAL FUNCTIONS
1.1 Call to Order: President Glen called the meeting to order at 2:24.
1.2 Approval of the Minutes: Michael Absher moved to approve the
November 16, 2006 minutes and Francisco Zermeño seconded. The
motion to approve carried.
2.0 REPORT S
2.1 College President’s Report: Dr. Carlson reported that there was a
mock disaster emergency preparedness drill this morning for
administrative staff.
Emergency procedures in classroom were
implemented as a result of the last exercise two years ago. Diane
Zuliani asked if there is a plan for a disaster such as influenza outbreak.
Dr. Carlson informed us that there are plans for a disaster like a dirty
bomb in downtown Hayward, but not for a health epidemic.
2.2 ASCC Report: Robert Lu read a statement in reaction to his hearing
from Linda Barde and other reports from Student Senate members in the
Facilities committee that Dr. Carlson had directed the deans to schedule
classes during college hour, etc. Robert’s report follows:
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 30th, 2006
●
First I’d like to submit the handout into the minutes. This handout includes the
resolutions passed at the SSCCC (Student Senate for California Community
Colleges). Please read them at your convenience, especially the resolution
regarding textbook prices and please take it into consideration.
●
It has come to the attention of the ASCC that Dr. Carlson has told all the
deans of the school to tell their faculty, for the Fall ’07 semester, to reschedule
their classes as follows:
Full-Time faculty may teach at 10:30-11:45 IF their section is offered during that
time. NO FULL TIME FACULTY MAY TEACH THE 12:00-1:15 SECTION. Only
part time faculty may teach at that time. Making the 12:00-1:15 class time
eliminates certain sections, I know for sure that social science is not losing a
section, but what about math, or English, or art? These changes will then move the
now 1:00-2:15 class time to 1:30-2:45 which will have an effect on the rest of the
schedule for the day. Changing these class schedules restrict faculty members
who sit on this board, unable to attend their own Senate meeting on time because
their class may go to 2:45 or even 3:05. Not only can faculty not make these
meetings, but students who need to take the specified courses that will be offered
during 1:30-2:45 will not be able to attend the following College-Wide committees
●Faculty Senate which meets every 2nd and 4th Thursday from 2:14-4:00
●Classified Senate which meets the 3rd Thursday from 2:00-4:00
●College Budget Committee which meets every 2nd and 4th Tuesday from 2:003:30, ●College Safety and Security Committee which meets the 2nd Tuesday from
1:00-3:00 ●Curriculum Committee which meets each Tuesday in the Fall and the
1st and 3rd Tuesday in the Spring from 2:00-4:00
●Staff Development Committee which meets every 2nd Thursday from 1:30-3:00.
My question is, has this information come before this Senate for discussion or
consideration? Has this Senate been consulted about the proposed changes? The
Associated Students have neither been consulted nor informed of these proposed
changes. One of the main concerns the Senate has is what happens to College
Hour. As some of you may know, since a number of members on this board are
Club Advisors, where and when can clubs meet? Not only are the times
unavailable now, but the classroom available is now in question. Campus clubs
suffer from the elimination of College Hour and so do various College-Wide
committees such as Facilities which met during College hour on Tuesday
November 14. It seems to me if the students must now change their schedules to
not only stay later in the day, but also not have the flexibility to attend these
meetings, why were the students not asked if they felt the class scheduling was
beneficial or not? According to Board Policy 2015 Collegial Consultation,
While all members of the Council take seriously the charge of the council, the
voting members have a special duty to develop expertise in curriculum matters, to
attend all meetings of the Council, to thoroughly review all matters presented to the
Council before voting, and to abstain from voting in situations where the council
member is not adequately prepared to make an informed decision. Appointments
by Academic Senate, Administration, Associated Students, and Faculty
Association.
2
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 30th, 2006
If this curriculum change was brought to this board, why did they not go to the
Student Senate? And if this board was not informed, why is that? Right now, it is
the strong opinion of the Student Senate that we are deliberately sidestepped in
the decision making process.
DISCUSSION: Dr. Carlson said that this was merely rumors and that nothing has
been decided yet. It is just a proposal, and not the best one he’s heard, that needs
to be vetted in College Council. Dr. Carlson invited Robert to go directly to his
office to clarify any future hearsay items.
2.3 Senate President’s Report: Chad Mark Glen reported that the Program
Introduction Process is going to the Board of Trustees as an information item on
December 5th.
Chancellor Search Committee is being developed with district PIO Jennifer Aries
and a Search Services Consultant. The committee will establish a timeline, and
write, design, and produce a recruitment brochure. The proposed timeline is:
• Application process is to close March 15, 2007.
• The paper screening and 1st level interviews complete are to be completed by
April 10th.
• The second level interviews with the Board are to be completed in as Special
Closed Session Meeting on April 24th.
• Public forums with the finalist(s) are to be completed by May 18th.
• The New Chancellor takes office July 1st.
At the last Chancellor’s Council I asked Dr. Cota to provide the Administrator
Evaluation Process and Procedures and the rating instrument being used. I
informed her that Chabot was not aware of the current Administrative Evaluation
Process. Dr. Carlson agreed that Chabot could use more information on the process
and that the last part of the new 3 year process had not been completely
implemented. Nothing has been done with the results of the surveys.
Dr. Carlson just provided me with information and Chancellor Cota will also provide
information. Dr. Carlson is working to put the evaluation survey on line so that an
outside firm like K. H. does not have to be brought in. Although there is no
requirement to consult with the Senate President on what administrators will be
evaluated when, Chabot will continue to include the Senate to see who needs to be
evaluated.
DISCUSSION: Michael Thompson asked who is on the first-level search
committee for the chancellor. President Glen responded that there are
appointments from the various Senates, the FA, and other constituency
representatives.
2.4 CLPFA: Dave Fouquet reported that the new salary schedule is still not on the
website. Vice Chancellor, Joel Kinnamon was to correct mistakes on the schedule,
3
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 30th, 2006
but he lost the corrections on his computer. We are still waiting for Joel to redo the
schedule. The Faculty Association is still working to resolve the issue of “F” hour
pay to determine the proper rate. There is disparity across the district, such that
people doing similar work may not get an equal pay rate. The issue is how to get
pro-rata equivalence figured out equitably. For those whose rate is over 100% prorata, their rate will be held in place on a “Y” hour pay rate while the regular rate
catches up. Adjunct Faculty seniority will no longer be determined for the
amount of time spent in the entire district. It will be established specific to each
discipline within each college. Therefore, a faculty who has been teaching math
for 20 years at one college would not be able to claim higher seniority over another
math faculty who has been teaching for 5 years at the other college. Similarly, a
long-time math faculty who has FSAs in both math and physics cannot claim
higher seniority over a junior physics faculty unless the math faculty has been
teaching physics longer than the physics faculty has. The Distance Education
Instructor Evaluation form is currently under review.
2.5 Public Comments: None.
3.0
ACTION ITEMS
3.1 General Education Reciprocity Program Certification: The resolution follows:
Whereas, the majority of Region IV Community Colleges have joined to
initiate a unique agreement that allows students to complete general
education requirements at one of the member colleges; become
“certified in GE and proficiency completion” (according to Title V),
present this “certification” at another member college which, according to
the GE Reciprocity agreement would supplant GE/graduation
requirements at the college and;
Whereas, each member college may have their own unique graduation
and proficiency requirements, all have to comply with Title V GE and
proficiency requirements. Consequently the GE reciprocity program
certifies that the student has met those minimum Title V GE and
proficiency requirements. Even though Chabot has two GE patterns,
one for the AA degree (26 units) and one for the AS degree (currently 19
units), both satisfy minimum Title V GE and proficiency requirements
and, according to the GE Reciprocity Agreement would be accepted by
Region IV member colleges as satisfying GE, graduation and proficiency
at their college. In turn, Chabot would agree to accept GE Certification
from any of the Region IV member colleges as meeting GE, graduation
and proficiency requirements for our programs, whether they are
designated AA degree or AS degree at the sending college and
regardless of the number of units beyond the Title V minimum at the
sending college. The designation of the degree at Chabot would
4
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 30th, 2006
determine how the GE certification is utilized. For instance, an AS in
Welding at Chabot using GE reciprocity from Ohlone would still be titled
an AS at Chabot and;
Whereas, the advantages to students would far outweigh the anticipated
minimal impact of Chabot joining into this agreement with other Region
IV colleges;
Therefore, be it resolved that Chabot College join the other Region IV
college members in offering the General Education Reciprocity Program
Certification to our students.
Francisco Zermeño moved and Barbara Ogman seconded the motion to approve
the GE reciprocity agreement resolution. Mike Absher asked Jane Church if our
AA/AS would be accepted by other colleges, and the response was yes—it’s a true
reciprocity. The motion passed. President Glen explained that the he next step is
to bring the approved resolution to the District Curriculum Council and ask if LPC
would also like to join the reciprocity program.
3.2 Distance Education Committee Governance Revision: Barbara Ogman moved
and Michael Thompson seconded the motion to approve the change to the DE
committee governance structure as listed below. The motion passed. The Senate
has worked with the Curriculum Committee and the DE Committee to revise and
approve their shared governance charge and structure. The DE Committee is now
an open meeting and uses the consensus decision-making processes.
Distance Education Committee
Open and uses consensus decision-making processes, but core representatives are
determined by the third week of each semester. Keeps and posts minutes on the web.
Meets the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of each month, 12-12:50 p.m., Room 402.
Charge:
•
Support faculty in DE delivery ventures and development of DE delivery plan proposals.
•
Administer Academic Senate approved DE review and approval process.
•
Recommend to the Curriculum Committee DE delivery plan approvals.
•
Make recommendations as appropriate and called for to Academic Senate, Faculty
Association, college-wide committees, college and district administration on issues
related to DE, such as evaluation of DE delivery instruction.
Chair: One faculty member approved by the Curriculum Committee
Core Representatives:
5
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 30th, 2006
Administration (2):
Vice President of Academic Services or designee
and one Dean appointed by Vice President
of Academic Services
Classified Senate (1):
Instructional Technology Coordinator & Instructional
Designer
Academic Senate (9):
At least one representative from each division, to
include:
One counselor and one librarian.
Minimum of two faculty experienced in DE delivery
at Chabot College.
Minimum of two faculty experienced in online
instruction at Chabot College.
Minimum of two faculty informed about DE
principles and practices as demonstrated by
completion of degree or certificate program,
participation in statewide Academic Senate DE
activities, or equivalent.
Minimum of two faculty with an interest in Distance
Education.
Reporting/Recommending Responsibilities:
Primary –
• Curriculum Committee
• Academic Senate
• Technology Committee
3.3 Associate of Science Degree Proposals: The resolution follows:
Whereas, Chancellor Cota has directed Chabot and Las Positas colleges
to work together to determine the Associate of Science (AS) general
education degree unit requirements and the District Curriculum Council
(DCC) has been discussing the design of the Associate of Science degree
and;
Whereas, the Academic Senate has sent AS degree surveys to faculty,
had Convocation discussions on the meaning of the Associate degree,
and later had breakout sessions discussing the AA and AS degrees and;
Whereas, more people are better informed on the AA and AS degrees;
Therefore, be it resolved that Chabot College revise our AS degree to
incorporate one unit from the Wellness area and allow discipline faculty to
choose three units of program-based GE to complete the 19 unit AS
degree. Subject to Curriculum Committee review and approval, the faculty
in the discipline containing the degree program determine, based on
program needs and a clearly defined program level learning outcome,
6
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 30th, 2006
which course or courses will satisfy this GE area. The discipline may
require a specific course or allow students to choose from a list of courses
or GE area(s). Any courses chosen to satisfy this area must be chosen
from the areas defined by Title 5 and the local option and must be chosen
from the list of courses approved by the college curriculum committee as
area GE courses.
Areas of General Education
Associate in Science Degree
Area
Title 5 Area
Language and Rationality
D.
English Composition
D. 1.
Communications and Analytical Thinking
D. 2.
Natural Sciences
A.
Humanities
C.
Social and Behavioral Sciences
B.
E.
Wellness (Areas of Health or PE)
E.
Program-based GE
American Cultures
Mathematics (proficiency)
TOTAL
Units
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
0
0
19
Based upon the faculty voting on the proposed AS degree options and Senate
discussion, Senators voted on the top two options. Option A received 5 votes and
Option B received 3 votes. Dave Fouquet moved and Michael Absher seconded
to approve the above resolution. The motion passed.
4.0
DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.1 LDTP (CSU Lower Division Transfer Pattern): Jane Church thanked the
Senate for the opportunity to present on this topic. Only three faculty showed up at
Jane’s faculty wide presentation! LDTP is an effort to streamline the preparation of
transfer to the CSU. It is made up of CSU/GE, common lower division preparation
courses, and lower division requirements in the “local area”. It allows students to
prepare for any CSU offering the major during the first 45 units. The last 15 units
would be (campus specific) so the student would need to have a good idea where
they want to transfer. The LDTP Statewide Pattern consists of the following
components: complete lower division GE requirements; (CSU/GE Certification – 39
units); complete graduation requirements in U.S. History, Constitution and
American Ideals – 0 units/double counted for CSU/GE add 6 units if using IGETC;
complete system wide lower division major preparation requirements – 6 units
(could be more depending on the major); TOTAL 45 units (49 units/IGETC); local
Area requirements fifteen units of lower division major preparation are added by
the “local area” CSU (this can fluctuate based on the number of units in the
Statewide Pattern); Total 60 CSU transferable units. When the LDTP is
7
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 30th, 2006
completed, the student will be admitted as a Junior, ready to take upper division
classes in their major. Rachel Aziminia informed us that there is a 90 attempted
units limit for federal financial aid eligibility.
Transfer California State University Numbers (TCSU Numbers): Jane Church
stated that there were California Articulation Numbers (CAN), which resulted from
legislation. CSU now wants TSCU numbers to replace CAN. UC does not honor
CAN any longer. TSCU course descriptors are being developed by CSU faculty
and some Community College faculty. Chabot will have to submit course outlines
that conform to the new standard in order for courses to articulate to CSU. There
may be some potential problems resulting from TCSU course descriptors. For
example, Math got a descriptor for differential equations with a multivariable
calculus prerequisite. An economics course descriptor has an intermediate
algebra prerequisite. These courses at Chabot do not have such prerequisites.
The Math Subdivision has submitted for TCSU approval the current differential
equations course without the stated prerequisite because they felt that many
Community College differential equations courses don’t have it. In fact, UC
Berkeley’s differential equations courses don’t have such a requirement. Math
thought that if CSU sees many submissions without the multivariable calculus
prerequisite, they would begin to rethink such a requirement.
4.2 eLumen Assessment Software Overview: Tabled because Sally Stickney had
to go out of town.
4.3 Accreditation Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Cycles: Diane Zuliani
made her SLOACs presentation at the Faculty Association (FA) meeting today, but
it was sparsely attended. She reported that some folks were glad to get the
information and appreciated her providing the research for those who are
interested. Ms. Zuliani expressed that she favors limiting SLOAC to basic skills,
because those skills are more appropriate for obtaining measurable outcomes.
President Glen indicated that he will write up a proposal for the basic skills
initiative money to reflect the will of the Senate from the last Senate meeting.
Nancy Cowan also expressed support for basic skills, as she can see nursing
students not meeting basic skills preparation. Another affirmation to focus on basic
skills came from a concern expressed to Zuliani from a Social Science colleague
who would like her history students to have English 1A reading level to read for
history. Rachel Aziminia believes that SLOs over simplify the complex process of
student learning. Ming Ho expressed support for beginning with basic skills
because outcomes for a course don’t mean anything if students don’t have the
needed knowledge or skills to benefit from the instruction in the course; to borrow a
phrase from Anita Wah, we also need to consider “student learning income” when
we examine what level of achievement of student learning outcome is appropriate.
Diane Zuliani added that we can’t be expected to work miracles with students who
are not ready for college, for whatever reason. Michael Absher offered another
example of how students are under prepared in basic skills commenting that
students who passed an automotive class but did not pass the related state board
certification.
8
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 30th, 2006
President Glen expressed that faculty and not just administration should interpret
what the results of assessments mean and determine the course of action(s)
based on the assessment results. Administration cannot use only the SLOACs
data to make decisions regarding programs— we need to go through the
established procedures like the Program Discontinuance Process. Michael
Absher remarked that we need to figure out how we respond to the assessment
data we obtain from SLOACs.
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
Administrator Evaluations— Stephanie Zappa;
eLumen Assessment Software Overview— Sally Stickney;
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.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM.
Next Meeting— December 14, 2006
Spring Meetings— 2nd & 4th Thursdays.
(*Special Meetings— not on 2nd or 4th Thursday).
M O /CM G
9