CHABOT COLLEGE ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE Board Room, Building 200 Thursday, February 23, 2006– 2:19 p.m. to 4:32 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 (Sally Stickney & Jane Church); Health, Physical Education, & Athletics (Nancy Cowan & Ross Shoemaker); Arts & Humanities (John Komisar); Language Arts (Stephanie Zappa & Francisco Zermeño); 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); Shari Jacobsen (CLPFA representative); ISLS Faculty: Susan Sperling and Don Skiles; Carol Baumann; Kip Waldo 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 2:19. 1.2 Approval of the Minutes: Though previously approved, the December 15th 2005 minutes were reviewed and one minor error corrected. Francisco Zermeño moved to approve the amended minutes and they passed. The minutes will be submitted to the website. The February 9 2006 minutes were then viewed and corrections were submitted. Francisco Zermeño moved to approve and Mike Absher seconded. The motion carried to approve the revised minutes. 2.0 REPORT S 2.1 College President. Dr. Robert Carlson only had a brief time to talk to us as he was to meet with the Classified Senate as well on this day. He said he had “lengthy conversations” with President Glen both before and after the Board Meeting on Tuesday night. Now that the Senate’s resolution on the budget cuts has been forwarded to the Board and a delay has been requested and granted, he has been asked by Dr. Susan Cota what he would like to do. He said he wished he had some more time and also was greatly concerned about classified staff, since some ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES February 23rd, 2006 members may have their positions in limbo if there is a delay to the budget cuts. Dr. Carlson decided to pull the budget cuts item at Tuesday’s Board meeting. Dr. Cota said she had no objection. Originally, the plan was that the item would be back before the Board at their next meeting on March 7, but that does not give the college too much time to truly propose anything different. He would therefore make a recommendation that March 21 is the due date, and he said that the Academic Senate can submit budget cuts on their own, if they want. However, March 21 would be the absolute deadline as he does not want any affected classified staff members to wait beyond that date. As for any suggestion that the Program Revitalization/Discontinuance process be implemented in this situation, there simply is not enough time as the process takes two years. Furthermore, the document has not officially been approved by the Board as of yet and anyway, the policy itself says that the Chancellor can set that timeline aside at her discretion. Dr. Cota can make a further statement on this issue, but she is not back in town until Tuesday. Dr. Carlson warned that there’s a “trap” if we moved the direction of using the Revitalization/Discontinuance Process. He claimed that the current budget cut decisions were not “casually arrived,” and that faculty members’ assessment that there was not dialogue was not true. He said that “conversations that some claim didn’t happen, did [in fact] happen.” He feels that the proposed budget cuts were “well thought out,” demonstrated “conscientious, hard work, and careful analysis.” All of the cuts were made, keeping our students in mind. While there may be changes that may occur during our delay, as far as he is concerned the process for what will be cut will not be a “sham process.” President Glen said Dr. Carlson meant with that last comment that there “will not be a run around with faculty.” President Glen is concerned that without an official Ad Hoc Committee as proscribed from the Program Revitalization/Discontinuance Process document, there may have not been appropriate study of the impacts/closures currently proposed. Such a committee may also be able to propose alternatives on the table. The key issue here is that “faculty will not be ignored”—which is what the Senate’s resolution was about. Hopefully, even if no changes are made to the current proposed budget cuts, there will at least be more thought and input. Dr. Carlson said he invites ideas on how to approach the dialogue regarding the budget cut proposals, and that if we have any ideas on how else to cut, to let him know. The Ad Hoc Committee needs to be appointed by both Senates. Dr. Susan Sperling had questions for Dr. Carlson. She asked him “Did you at any time meet with the ISLS staff to talk about the discontinuance of the program.” Dr. Carlson said he did not and delegated the task to Marcia Corcoran. Dr. Sperling’s second issue was regarding the management style demonstrated in the handling of ISLS. ISLS is a program of 40 year standing, which is very significant to the college, and if anything deserved his time, it was something of this importance in the college. She really wished President Carlson spoke directly to 2 ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES February 23rd, 2006 the ISLS faculty and the issues he had regarding it. She said that based on how he handled the decision and how he notified the ISLS faculty about it, she has grave concerns about his overall management style. President Glen said that when the Board approved our resolution, they affirmed that faculty must be involved in determining the budget cuts. Dr. Carlson needed to leave to meet with the Classified Senate, but reassured that faculty will have the chance to make comments before a budget cuts proposal is submitted to the Board again. 2.2 ASCC. No report. 2.3 CLPFA. David Fouquet said that there were supposed to have been two negotiations recently but both were cancelled by the District. There is one for tomorrow. One of the items will be to review the most updated version of the budget. Shari Jacobsen reminded everyone that the Faculty Association is now meeting on Tuesdays this semester, instead of Thursdays. The dates are on March 14, April 4, and May 9 in room 1904. Stephanie Zappa asked David about what he meant of the budget update and what has been concluded. David responded that not until this week did they receive the current budget update. Now they are able to go over the numbers. 2.4 Public Comments: Carol Baumann said she had two questions/statements. Her first issue was how communication was handled to faculty at large regarding the Academic Senate’s resolution regarding the budget cuts passed at the February 9 meeting and submitted to the Board on February 21. She did not know that the resolution was in existence until after it went before the Board. While her representative, Norman Buchwald, is usually good at forwarding documents and other news to his constituents, he was out ill at the February 9 meeting, and she was not informed. In conversing with other faculty members, she was surprised to learn that a number of others also were not aware of the resolution. She advised that there needs to be a “routine way in reporting back to faculty,” especially for “anything of this importance.” She asked that important items such as the Academic Senate resolution be forwarded to faculty at large, by at least sending to CCFaculty on GroupWise. President Glen said that he takes full responsibility on the lack of communication on this issue. While the resolution was sent to Senators, who should have sent it to their constituents, this resolution should have been posted more widespread. Carol pointed out that when faculty are not informed, and a resolution such as this is brought before the Board, they are “not truly represented,” because if Carol and other faculty members had known about the resolution, they may have been motivated to attend the meeting so that they can provide support. President Glen said that current practice is that the Senate minutes are posted the day following their approval on the campus web site. The agenda for each meeting is posted at 3 ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES February 23rd, 2006 three places on campus and on the website—usually by the Monday of the week the meeting is to take place. He considered sending the agenda to faculty at large and asked that they be viewed in HTML format so that they can be read more easily. Jane Church thinks that simply pointing faculty members to the appropriate web site would be enough, but John Komisar pointed out that some faculty may not be as inclined to go somewhere else and it would be better that the agenda is sent directly to them. Carol Bauman’s second question was how the resolution was put forth at the Board meeting. Based on what she had heard, she asked "Did the Faculty Senate instruct the Senate President to go to the Board, present the resolution and then say that it was his personal recommendation that the Board not approve the proposed cuts and that a delay would give Dr. Carlson a chance to smooth things over?" If the Senate did not do that then they needed to talk about how things get presented. President Glen contended that was not the case, and would explain what happened on our action item. 3.0 ACTION ITEMS 3.1 Budget Cuts & Program Closure Process. To respond to Carol’s second question, President Glen gave some background as to why a request for a delay was eventually made. Dr. Carlson would not work with the Academic Senate’s resolution, and when discussing the resolution with Dr. Cota, she felt it was important to support the College President. Dr. Carlson believed he did not do anything wrong as to how he put the budget cuts proposal together. He felt that shared governance was too slow. Dr. Carlson said he would not support the Academic Senate’s resolution before the meeting and Dr. Cota was supporting the president. President Glen read a prepared a statement to the Board: Dear CLPCCD Board of Trustees: 2/21/06 The Chabot Educational Master Plan is on this evening’s Board Agenda. The Academic Senate thanks you for being responsive to faculty concerns. As a result of pulling the Educational Master Plan from the previous Board Agenda, there is greater buy-in, the Ed Master Plan is a better plan and document, and it has improved communication. 2/9/06 Academic/Faculty Senate Resolution: In light of recent (proposed) budget and program cuts, the Chabot College Academic/Faculty Senate agrees that there has been no formal, transparent process, nor has any form of shared governance been observed. We have processes in place by which decisions ought to be made inclusively and transparently. This lack of collegial consultation is evidence of bad faith on the part of Chabot College 4 ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES February 23rd, 2006 administration. The Academic/Faculty Senate insists that there be a transparent process that includes faculty at every level. In particular, the Senate insists that any decision regarding Interdisciplinary Studies in Letters and Science (ISLS) or any other program follow the Program Revitalization/Discontinuance Process, which is approved by both colleges and is expected to be followed by the administration in good faith. [Chabot approved the Program Revitalization/Discontinuance Process on 10/27/05, prior to President Carlson’s 1st budget cut memo of 11/7/05.] The Senate respectfully requests that the Board pull the Chabot Budget Reductions for 2006-07 until the March Board meeting. This will allow President Carlson to meet with the faculty directly affected by the proposed budget cuts. Chabot’s accreditation report lists communication as a major area that needs correcting. Although President Carlson sincerely believes adequate communication has taken place, if the faculty in those areas do not believe they have been communicated with, then there is still a communication problem. Trust, or the lack of trust by faculty and staff of administration, has been a central factor contributing to Chabot’s communication problem. Pulling this agenda item until the next Board meeting will allow Chabot to communicate and strive to build trust. Even if there is no change in the proposed budget cuts, allowing a bit more time could yield dividends far greater than dollars and cents. [I clarified that the Senate resolution did not stipulate the March Board meeting and that the March 7th date that Dr. Carlson mentioned was a workshop and not a Board meeting. The next board meeting would be on March 21st. Dr. Cota pointed out that the March 7th Board “meeting” was at Chabot, which was in Chabot’s favor. The March 7th meeting would allow for an update and feedback to the Board and that the item could return for action at the March 21st meeting.] Thank you, Chad Mark Glen The main case President Glen brought forth is that Chabot had approved the Program Revitalization/Discontinuance Process (PR/DP) document on October 27, before Dr. Carlson put the first budget cuts proposal forward, which was on November 7th. He made this case to Dr. Cota to correct her belief that the PR/DP passed after the budget cuts were first being proposed. Eventually, Dr. Cota said she would not have an issue if Dr. Carlson pulled the budget cuts item. Dr. Carlson said he disagreed with the proposal for a delay, but offered to have it pulled. He probably did so because there appeared to be a possibility that his proposal may have been voted down. 5 ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES February 23rd, 2006 When President Glen had asked for an extension at the Board meeting, immediately after he forwarded the Senate’s resolution, Susan Sperling, who was there, reminded him that the Senate did not ask for an extension and President Glen did clarify this fact at the Board meeting. The next Board meeting takes place on March 7 and it will be here at Chabot, but is a workshop. The next regular Board meeting takes place on March 21 and that is when likely the Board of Trustees will consider a budget cuts proposal from Chabot College again. This extension is possible because the District has no intention to lay off any full-time faculty members, so decisions do not need to be made before the March 15 deadline, the last day a tenured or tenure track faculty member can get a pink slip. Classified members are given only 30 days notice. President Glen noted that some classified staff are not pleased about the delay. President Glen wants decisions regarding budget cuts to go through the shared governance process through an Ad Hoc Committee as proscribed in the PR/DP document. The time frame would be expedited, however this is the process that was agreed to, was approved by both colleges. The Senate feels Dr. Carlson ignored a verbal contract agreement, simply by making the case that the document had not been formally approved by the Board at the time. An issue was brought up about one time money proposals Dr. Carlson announced to faculty and staff just this week. Where was there evidence of faculty and staff input on these documents? President Glen said that Dr. Cota had agreed that there must be participation from faculty and staff on these proposals as well. Mike Absher believed that President Glen did the right thing by asking for an extension. He also pointed out that Dr. Carlson’s claims that the PR/DP could be waived by Dr. Cota, but President Glen had appeared to persuade Dr. Cota of the value of our shared governance process. It was very important for us to have voted in this PR/DP because we now had it in writing and so it is appropriate that we now make budget cut decisions by this process. Francisco Zermeño believes the 1.4 million dollar budget cut requirement is a sham. He believes such an ad hoc committee should be formed right away so that the study of the numbers of our growth and what exactly is being planned has appropriate oversight and input. President Glen pointed out that while Dr. Cota had set the February 21 deadline, that Dr. Carlson could have asked for it to be pushed back. He did not do so. Dr. Cota said she might have given a different deadline if Dr. Carlson had asked. President Glen finally got an updated book of the budget cuts and the numbers so the committee can work with them. 6 ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES February 23rd, 2006 Francisco Zermeño had questions on the numbers. Up until now, there were no clear figures as to how much it would take to keep the Television Studio open, for example. Stephanie Zappa raised the question that the Program and Classified cuts might be treated separately. Furthermore, programs that are on the docket are intercurricular, and discontinuing particular programs will have impacts in the future. If cuts occur as they are now slated, it would take years to rebuild them, recapture the growth that has been achieved. President Glen and Zappa both agreed that any affected classified members should be notified now of possible lay-offs or reassignments, while the fate of programs continues to be discussed. Frustrations were voiced how Dental Hygiene faculty were not notified of an eliminated classified position, and how even President Glen was not notified of the Television Station being cut beforehand. Michael Thompson felt a little bit uncomfortable of “changing things on the fly.” He is unsettled how communication regarding the cuts has been presented to us. He feels as if decisions are still already made, without any real input from the Senate, even. President Glen said that Dr. Carlson and he will meet the next day based on what is decided, today. Michael still felt that the budget cuts are still entrusted upon the Senate. Dr. Carlson had to be dragged into the shared governance process. Michael says how can we have much confidence? Does Dr. Carlson “get it” as to how important decisions such as these need to be made collegially? How sincere will his listening to us be? President Glen said that Dr. Carlson’s past behavior has been a bit stubborn. However, when Dr. Carlson does see when he is wrong about something, he will respond. The challenge is that Dr. Carlson currently does not think he handled this situation inappropriately. Dr. Carlson needs to understand if his attitude does not change, faculty at large will not trust him. There is concern among the Senate that this institution could be damaged in the long term with the budget cuts as proposed. President Glen said there were a couple of other options we could take besides the Ad Hoc Committee of the PR/DP. IPBC could be the deciding body, but President Glen and IPBC felt that was not appropriate. Jane Church pointed out that there is a lot of disinformation going around regarding the budget cuts. The reason the Career Center is being de-funded is that it was dependent on VATEA funds, and they run out after this year. While the position is being eliminated in the Dental Hygiene Program, the classified person was not laid off and was in fact promoted to be the administrative assistant for Counseling. The person was given choices and was consulted about where to go. Members from Administration went out of their way to help this person. She also reminded that during the Fall semester to the present, we have had four managers coming from faculty. They were faced with tough, arduous budget challenges and had to make very difficult decisions. They continued to have 7 ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES February 23rd, 2006 faculty in mind and they saw everything that was being proposed, and had to really focus on how every penny was being spent. While she cannot speak for the final decisions, she did not see any viciousness, but she also pointed out that the process can be improved in coming to these decisions. Dr. Ron Taylor agreed that administration did look at everything with careful consideration. David Fouquet said that decisions can be sharply affected by “jury instructions given by the judge.” He thinks just as when a jury will sometimes come with a verdict by rather closed instructions from a judge that may be the situation we have been in (coming from Dr. Carlson). He pointed out that since the March 15 deadline for pink slips does not apply to Chabot College, the deadline dates being given to us are coming from Dr. Carlson, not Dr. Cota. He further pointed out that he does not believe in the District’s budget claims—he has seen how they have rendered and displayed the numbers. He does not believe we are in such a huge deficit. He sees similar over budgeting practices that happened in the 2004/2005 year being done again this year. David believes we may be ½ million in the red for this year, similar to last. President Glen said the Chancellor and the Board believe these are the real numbers. David said we need to analyze those numbers to see what the real budget is. The current rendering of the need for budget cuts, etc. seem “riddled with fallacies.” For example, one area in the December statement documented one proposed cut to be a savings of $180,000 when the official Board packet had the savings for that area down to $128,000 and the savings may even be less because, if the particular cut happened, we would lose students that would have otherwise generated revenue. Whenever David has tried to present numbers when Dr. Carlson is in the room, he feels he is being “treated like a potted plant.” David Fouquet stated that Dr. Cota had invited Tom De Witt and David to read the numbers, but the meeting did not happen (it was supposed to have happened in January). David reaffirmed again his concern that many of the savings proposed from the cuts do not factor in the students we would lose which would make any savings smaller, at best. Mike Absher gave a point of order that it had been 46 minutes focusing on this Action Item and Action still has not been taken. Stephanie Zappa said that when she agreed to serve on the Senate this year, she was expecting it to be a positive experience by taking part of shared governance and yet then is told “I’m the President and I’m making the decisions.” Instead of being faculty who are participants in the process we are told we are a pain, or that we only focus on the negative on the budget cuts, or we are told we are “whiners.” The purpose here is not to be “us vs. them”—the ultimate goal is to have actual dialogue. Currently, faculty are not included in ways they should be. “I believe the College President does not even begin to understand our programs that are on the chopping Block.” 8 ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES February 23rd, 2006 President Glen passed out the final draft of the PR/DP. David Fouquet said he was concerned about President Carlson’s argument that we cannot follow this document, but President Glen said he disagrees with Dr. Carlson. While the timeline obviously cannot be followed (it is a two year process in the document), it can still be a guideline. John Komisar pointed out the continuing frustration on how Dr. Carlson has told us that certain programs are being cut for good, and then at other times, they are not permanently cut. Dr. Susan Sperling said that Marcia Corcoran had made the recommendation that ISLS be suspended for a year, and that she and the faculty had the impression that would be the case, but then later they were told that the program would be permanently cut. John Komisar asked Ron Taylor to comment and explain what the difference between suspending and eliminating programs is. Dr. Taylor said that cutting the ISLS program has to be seen in concert with all the other cuts. He’s happy to hear alternatives. There was a lot of discussion of savings that were looked at regarding possible cuts. There was skepticism of whether stating a suspension of a program could work. Francisco Zermeño thanked David Fouquet for his discussion of seeing likely discrepancies in the numbers. He believes we should recommend there be no cuts. President Glen stated we could forward three alternatives: 1. There be no cuts. 2. The PR/DP be followed expeditiously. 3. A worst case scenario, cuts be proposed. Page 6 of the PR/DP calls for an Ad Hoc Committee. The formation of the committee may need to be changed slightly as in this case, the committee would be looking at multiple areas/programs instead of one committee for a single program. Sally Stickney asked should there be any subcommittees. President Glen said that the ad hoc committee should look at key documents such as the one on Program Review and definitely think qualitatively on three year trends to see what would be the best proposed cuts. He then asked us to look at page three to view the quantitative measure. Jane Church asked what exactly the draft status of the PR/DP is. President Glen explained that while the Board has not adopted it, it has been approved by both colleges so the Board should take it seriously. Mike Absher said that our resolution is based on the assumption that there will be cuts. The Board in accepting our resolution would want to hear from us how we want to do it differently. In his opinion, the Board would not expect us to say “don’t make any cuts.” President Glen said the timeline, starting on page 4 and some of the particular deadlines and certain processes will need to be skipped, and a timeline further 9 ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES February 23rd, 2006 redefined. A very streamlined process will be drafted for this unique process soon. Ron Taylor pointed out that there would be one challenge. The Ad Hoc Committee includes a Vice President of a relevant area—however for multi-areas as this Committee will be overseeing—there is not a clear designation as to which Vice President is best to be on this committee. Ming Ho said that appointments will depend on the combined Programs, and to look at the requirements for faculty to be included. President Glen said that when discussing this issue with Dr. Carlson, the President that the challenge here is that the committee can only include anyone who is NOT affected by the cuts. For example, President Glen cannot be on this committee because the TV station is a part of his program. President Glen said that there will be one Ad Hoc Committee—this committee will meet with individual programs for presentations. Stephanie Zappa believes the committee will need to be large. She still has issues that affected faculty cannot sit on it. Mike Absher moved that there be an Ad Hoc Committee, which will include one faculty member from IPBC, one from the Budget Committee, one from the Academic Senate, one from the Faculty Association, one “floater” (at large faculty member from anywhere), one Classified Senate member, one Classified Union member the College President and one administrator. These positions would be appointed by the Academic Senate. Ming Ho seconded. The motion carried. Norman Buchwald asked with respect to the three options President Glen mentioned earlier, why there is not a fourth one that really gets at the heart of the matter. Why are we not demanding that the current District budget allocation model be changed? It seems that at the beginning of each year, Chabot is told to be in a deficit, and this is not the first year the college has been forced to make significant cuts, while Las Positas by comparison, seems to get by unscathed. Why isn’t the Board taking a serious look at this model which always makes Chabot seem delinquent when that is really not the case? Mike Absher felt this was not the time to demand the Board change it, but President Glen does believe it is at least an opportune time to remind the Board that the Budget Allocation Model must be given a serious look and to consider changing it, in the future. Sally Stickney said that people need to be appointed expeditiously and that word needs to be given to affected Programs quickly. President Glen said he will let Dr. Carlson know what the Senate’s recommendations are on the ad hoc committee and the review process. The next Academic Senate meeting is on March 2nd. Meeting adjourned at 4:32 10 ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES February 23rd, 2006 Below are Agenda Items not covered today due to time constraints and will be covered at a future date: 4.0 DISCUSSION ITEMS 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Program Review and Program Closure Process —Tom Dewit District Curriculum Council Charge — Chad Mark Glen Tree Planting and Naming— Francisco Zermeño Board Policy 2260: Political Activity— Chad Mark Glen 6.0 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS— 6.1 Counselors Assigned to Divisions— Mike Absher; 6.2 2006-07 Draft Strategic Plan— Laurie Dockter; 6.3 Cheating Update— Chad Mark Glen; 6.4 50% Law State Task Force— Zappa/Zermeño; 6.5 College Council and IPBC Charges 6.6 Program Introduction Process— Ron Taylor; 6.7 Construction Effecting Scheduling of Classes— Stephanie Zappa; 6.8 Curriculum Committee— Mike Absher; Adjournment— Next Meeting— March 2nd*, 2006 Spring Meetings— 2nd & 4th Thursdays: April 6* & 20*; May 4* & 11* (*Special Meetings— not on 2nd or 4th Thursday). N B /CM G 11