Special Meeting
B o a r d R o o m , B u i l d i n g 2 0 0
Thursday, October 19, 2006 – 2:25 p.m. to 4:55 p.m.
A P P R O V E D M I N UT E S
Submitted by Francisco Zermeño 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:
(Curriculum Chair).
Presiding Officers: President Chad Mark Glen, Vice President Michael Absher.
Dr. Ron Taylor (Vice President, Academic Services), Dr. Carolyn
Arnold (Institutional Researcher and Grants Coordinator), Nolly Ruiz
ITEM
1.0 GENERAL FUNCTIONS
1.1 Call to Order : President Glen called the meeting to order at 2:25.
1.2 Approval of the Minutes : Michael Thompson moved to approve the
October 12, 2006 minutes and Rachel Aziminia seconded. Some said that things were not captured in the Minutes. Some minor corrections were made. Michael Absher made a correction on agenda item 2A.
The motion to approve carried.
2 . 0 R E P O R T S
2.1 College President: Dr. Carlson asked if there were any questions of concerns that the Senate would like for him to address. Senators asked the president to discuss class scheduling concerns about the reduced number of classes during construction during the next five or more years.
Norman Buchwald stated that more Friday and Saturday classes during construction will mean that services for students will need some modifications. What is being planned? Dr. Carlson replied that the
Chabot Enrollment Management Committee (CEMC) is looking at the options regarding Student Services. Other colleges were polled on the effects of enrollments and student services when shifting class scheduling to afternoons. Some colleges’ afternoon classes fill, others do not. If done correctly, the classes will fill at Chabot. Michael

ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES October 19 th
, 2006
Thompson asked how retention is affected during non-traditional class scheduling times. Dr. Carlson stated that how retention is affected varies at different colleges.
The general impression is that retention does not do as well, but it can work.
Michael Thompson asked why the proposed budget on construction over budget.
Dr. Carlson said that we have to plan on cutting on some aspects of the new building projects, and that would make them less expensive. This will help address the increased costs of construction. The Instructional Office Building is over budget by approximately $5 million. The exterior shower facility planned for costs quite a bit, so it may go inside the building to save on construction costs. It was planned as a separate building to help with environmental improvements and to get Lead Silver Certification. The building would allow biking employees a place to cleanup and change for work. The architects are looking into compromising on the cost of items like this. Rachel Aziminia asked about Student Services in the evening. Dr. Carlson replied that we do have some Student Services in the evening and a little on Saturdays. Chad Mark Glen stated that the CEMC meets on Mondays and they will be decide on the services. He encouraged Senators to get the word out about the CEMC meetings and have interested faculty attend the meetings, which are held in the Board Room at 1:00 PM.
2.2 Robert Lu, ASCC Report: No report.
2.3 Senate President’s Report : Chad Mark Glen reported that at the Unit Plan process meeting, Dr. Taylor, the new VP of Business Services, Farhad, Dale
Wagoner, Laurie Docktor, Nolly Ruiz and I discussed making the Unit Plan document meaningful and useful. The Budget Committee uses the budget information in the Unit Plans to prioritize allocation of funds. Ron introduced the idea of a cover page with boxes for each area of the Unit Plan to be checked off as read with lines for feedback on each of the Unit Plan. This completed cover page would then go back to each unit, which could then go to the source of the comments for follow up or more information. Unfortunately, the request to streamline and simplify the process doesn’t seem likely as the discussion morphed into making Unit Plan do more than just a report that sits on a shelf; as is the current perception. If you have ideas
Unit Plan Discussion: Rachel Aziminia stated that Student Services are special and their Unit Plans are different. Dr. Taylor responded that Special Services needs to provide input in order to find out how to make something productive from the Unit Plan. Chabot needs to know what Student Services’ needs are to better represent it. There should be no duplication of effort. Dr. Arnold replied that it’s more about what Student Services is doing, and letting the campus know about it.
Ming Ho arrived at 2:51 PM.
Michael Absher asked what could actually be afforded. What is speculated and what is realized? A Unit Plan is a one year item. What is the scope of a Unit
Plan? Dr. Taylor indicated that more work will be involved in doing the Unit Plan.
2

ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES October 19 th
, 2006
How good are we at planning? The Unit Plan is a planning document and we need to show evidence of planning. The Unit Plan will include long term faculty staffing projections, which are challenge, and can be complicated, and would need a Trend
Line and Projected Growth. The scope of the Unit Plan is important, as it is used to determine the unit budget. This is a complex issue and we need efficiency in creating the Unit Plan. Chad Mark Glen stated that faculty are asking for a streamlining of the process. What is being discussed moves away from that and appears to be making the Unit Plan an even bigger beast. It was stated that some areas, or units, have many faculty and a large budget, so the Unit Plan may be 20 pages or longer. Others do not have many faculty or budgetary needs and their
Unit Plans will be shorter.
President Glen continued his report: Our Senate’s view on the proposed State
Senate Resolutions on the Associate’s degree is not shared by the majority of
Senate Presidents. For example, we said no to the Single Degree Title Resolution and the majority of other colleges said yes. We said yes to defining the AA/AS degrees, and the majority of other colleges said no. We agreed on not creating a
3 rd
degree for Occupational majors. Other colleges were in opposition to Associate degrees based on IGETC and CSU GE Breadth.
AS Degree LPC’s Senate and divisions are looking at 4 scenarios for the AS degree that we will be reviewing today.
2.4 Public : None.
3.0 A C T I I O N I T E M S
3.1 AS Degree Proposal: The following LPC Academic Senate AS degree proposal was discussed.
Below are four items that should help guide your discussion about the AS in this week’s division meetings.
1. Existing AS Degree Requirements
2. Title 5 Degree Requirements
3. Draft Proposal A for AS
4. Draft Proposal B for AS
The ongoing discussions about the AS degree have led to two items of consensus among the LPC faculty:
ƒ
Most LPC faculty favor keeping the AS as a lower-unit degree than the AA.
ƒ Most LPC faculty don’t favor keeping the “American Institutions or Health” option under the AS because it creates unclear learning outcomes for students.
3

ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES October 19 th
, 2006
(References: Notes from Convocation posted on District web site and division reports in minutes from September 27, 2006, LPC Academic Senate meeting.)
1. Existing AS Degree Requirements
Area
Language and Rationality
Title 5 Area
D.
D. 1.
D.2.
Units
3
3 Communications and Analytical
Thinking
Natural Sciences A. 3
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Physical Education
American Institutions or Health
American Cultures
Mathematics (proficiency)
TOTAL
B.
E.
3
1
E. 3
0
0
19
2. Title 5 Degree Requirements
These are the areas defined by Title 5.
Area Number of units required by Title 5
C. Humanities
D. Language Rationality
3
3
3
3
3
Analytical Thinking
Minimum of 3 units in this area.
In the CLPCCD: for the AA degree, this area
consists of:
•
Writing and Critical
Thinking
•
American Institutions
•
Areas of Health
•
Physical Education for the AS degree, this area consists of
•
Physical Education
•
American Institutions OR
Health
TOTAL 18 (minimum)
In addition, Title 5 mandates minimum standards for English and mathematics.
The current standard is eligibility for English 1A and mathematics proficiency at the level of Elementary Algebra.
4

ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES October 19 th
, 2006
Based on the Title 5 requirements, discussions at Convocation, discussions in the
LPC Curriculum Committee and LPC Senate, and the directions of the LPC Senate
Curriculum Chair Teri Henson and I have prepared the following proposals.
3. Draft Proposal A
This proposal allows division faculty to choose three units of program-based
GE to complete the AS.
Draft Proposal A
Areas of General Education
Associate in Science Degree
Area Title 5 Area Units
Language and Rationality
Communications and Analytical Thinking
Natural Sciences
D.
D. 1.
D.2.
A.
3
3
3
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Physical Education
Program-based GE*
B. 3
E. 1
E. 3
American Cultures
Mathematics (proficiency)
0
0
TOTAL 19
*Associate in Science Degree Program-based GE (Title 5 Area E):
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, which course or courses will satisfy this 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 must be chosen from the list of courses approved by the college curriculum committee as area GE courses.
This innovative approach has the following benefits:
ƒ Empowers faculty to decide which area of GE is most important based on program needs and outcomes
ƒ Fits within the requirements of Title 5
ƒ Wouldn’t exclude any of the GE areas from consideration
(including American Institutions and Health)
ƒ Is outcome-based and leads to creation of program-based Student Learning
Outcomes.
4. Draft Proposal B
This proposal creates a parallel structure to the AA degree with Wellness as an area and American Institutions as a separate area.
5

ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES October 19 th
, 2006
Draft Proposal B
Areas of General Education
Associate in Science Degree
Area Title 5 Area Units
Language and Rationality
Communications and Analytical Thinking
Natural Sciences
D.
D. 1.
D.2.
A.
3
3
3
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Wellness
American Institutions
American Cultures
Mathematics (proficiency)
TOTAL
B. 3
E. 1
E. 3
0
0
19
This more traditional approach has the following benefits:
ƒ
Makes outcomes consistent with the AA for the GE portion of the AS
ƒ Keeps the AS at its current level of 19 units
ƒ Addresses concerns raised by the LPC and Chabot Academic Senates about
American Institutions being an option rather than a requirement in the AS.
ƒ Incorporates Wellness from the AA
Please discuss these items. You need not vote at this time, but provide your feedback to the Academic Senate and the District Curriculum Council. We anticipate having divisions vote on these matters in November.
AS Degree Discussion: A lively discussion ensued. The above proposed options will be revised and will need to be brought to the divisions. Chad will work with
LPC to make the revisions to the above proposal in light of our Senate’s discussion. Chad will send a memo to faculty about the AS degree proposals.
Michael Thompson asked about the rational from LPC. Michael Absher explained the history of it. Some divisions feel that the AS degree should be kept as it is. Chad Mark Glen e xplained the process for working on the AS degree changes. We will work with LPC to draft the proposed revisions to the AS degree.
Divisions will have an opportunity to weigh in on the proposed changes. The
Senates would vote on which proposal to send to the District Curriculum Council
(DCC). The DCC would discuss the matter and then both Senate would have to agree to the AS degree changes before it could go to the Board of Trustees for district approval. Ming Ho pointed out that on the LPC document, on Draft
Proposal A the American Institutions is important in order to produce an educated informed citizenry. Nolly Ruiz stated that a nation wide study shows that students do badly on tests dealing with information about American Institutions. Rachel
Aziminia questioned, what is American Institutions? Does it need clarification?
What does it mean? Michael Thompson provided some clarification, saying that the Constitution is covered but more is also taught. Nolly Ruiz replied that we need to define our Outcomes and discuss our philosophy on American Institutions.
6

ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES October 19 th
, 2006
Michael Thompson stated that American Institutions used to be two classes, but now it’s only one. Chad Mark Glen urged that American Institutions are important for our students to understand and we need to ensure they learn it before they leave Chabot. American Cultures looks at 3 cultures, while American Institutions presents the Constitution and cultures
Dave Fouquet arrived at 3:36 PM and asked what do employees look for? What are the bare minimums of our degrees? After further discussion, Senators voted to table the motion in order to get feedback from divisions. It was pointed out that there is always the option of keeping the AS degree the same.
Diane Zuliani arrived at 3:52 PM. Michael Thompson departed at 3:55 PM.
3.2 Program Introduction Process: Title 5 requires California Community Colleges to have a program introduction process. Francisco Zermeño moved to approve the revised shorter version of the Program Introduction Process and Michael
Absher seconded. The motion carried .
4 .
.
0 D I I S C U S S I I O N I I T E M S
4.1 LDTP (CSU Lower Division Transfer Project): This item was tabled per Jane
Church’s request.
4.2 AS Degree Recommendations: Discussion under Action Item 3.2 above rendered further discussion unnecessary at this time.
4.3 eLumen This item was tabled per Sally Stickney’s request.
4.4 Accreditation Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Cycles: A lively discussion ensued. Diane Zuliani is critical of SLOs as they are seen as punitive.
Diane believes that political and economic forces seem to be pushing the SLO drive. Before faculty get fully involved in SLO participation good research needs to be done first. Some feel SLOs open the door to standardization. There is a tie in to the K-12 system of ‘No Child Left Behind.’ Diane will go to the College Council to present her research findings on the SLO movement. Diane proposed a special one topic Senate meeting entitled, Student Learning Outcomes and the
Accountability Movement: What Faculty Should Know. The meeting will be either on November 2 nd
or the 14 th.
A Flex Day in February would be a good day to present this information to the college at large. SLOs must be defined first!
5 .
.
0 R E P O R T S I I I I
5 .
.
1 CLPFA : Dave Fouquet reported on the 2007-08 Calendar, which is almost like the 2006-07 calendar. The 2008-09 calendar has Convocation on a Monday, with classes beginning on a Wednesday. 11 week summers are needed. There was
7

ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES October 19 th
, 2006
6 .
.
0 discussion on Calendar ups and downs. Senate needs to see the Calendar earlier.
There was minor Contract discussion.
Francisco Zermeño departed at 4:40 PM.
5 .
.
2 S e n a t t e C o m m i i t t t t e e s : : No report.
5 .
.
3 S e n a t t o r r s : : N o n e
F U T U R E A G E N D A I I T E M S
6.1 Student Learning Outcomes and the Accountability Movement: What Faculty
Should Know— Diane Zuliani,
6.3 eLumen Assessment Software Overview— Sally Stickney;
6.4 At-Large Faculty Vote on Senate Constitution Changes— Chad Mark Glen;
6.5 District Faculty Hire Procedures— Chad Mark Glen;
Meeting adjourned at 4:55 PM.
Next Meeting— November 9,
Fall Meetings— 2
(*Special nd
& 4 th
—
2006
Thursdays: 11/30* and 12/14. not on 2 nd
or 4 th
Thursday).
F Z / C M G
8