CHABOT COLLEGE ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE
Board Room, Building 200
Thursday, February 9, 2006– 2:18 p.m. to 4:45 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 & Jane Church); Health, Physical Education, & Athletics
(Nancy Cowan & Ross Shoemaker); Arts and Humanities (John
Komisar); Language Arts (Stephanie Zappa & Francisco Zermeño);
Library (Norman Buchwald); Science & Mathematics (Dave Fouquet &
Ming Ho); Social Sciences (Barbara Ogman & Michael Thompson);
and Adjunct Faculty (Anne Brichacek).
Guests:
Dr. Ron Taylor (Vice President, Academic Services); Shari Jacobsen
(CLPFA representative); ISLS Students: Beth Miller, Christopher H.
Jacob, Deanna Long, Jack Barnwell, Joseph Fisher, Karen
Jackson, Marcia Harrell, Mark West; ISLS Faculty: Don Skiles,
Scott Hildreth, Susan Sperling.
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 2:18 p.m.
1.2 Approval of the Minutes: Francisco Zermeño moved to approve the
minutes of the December 15, 2005 meeting and Michael Thompson
seconded. The motion carried after revisions were discussed and
agreed to. „Michael Absher moved to approve the minutes of the
January 26, 2006 meeting and Francisco Zermeño seconded. The
motion carried after a minor revision.
2.0 REPORT S
2.1 College President. Dr. Robert Carlson requested the senate avoid
direct quoting in the minutes.
Contexts should be provided for
paraphrased comments put in the minutes.
„He has attended
accreditation training and was surprised by what the college is asked to
do—there is lots of work prescribed under the Accreditation Reference
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
February 9th, 2006
Manual, copies of which he will send to Senators. There are four pervading
standards now instead of ten and six themes that need to be addressed
throughout the accreditation report. The standards are: 1. Institutional Mission
and Effectiveness, 2, student Learning Programs and Services, 3. Resources,
and 4. Leadership and Governance.
The themes are: 1. Institutional
Commitments, 2. Evaluation, Planning and Improvement, 3. Student Learning
Outcomes, 4. Organization, 5. Dialogue, and 6. Institutional Integrity. He will put
together a writing team to address these. About one year from now we will have
to start writing our next accreditation self-study report. In the context of
accreditation, Dave Fouquet asked what is an SLO (Student Learning Outcome),
what can be chosen as SLOs, and what do we have to do regarding SLOs,
especially when some seem to be harmful. He expressed concerns about
accreditation encroaching upon academic freedom and bargaining.
He
mentioned that there had been successful court cases challenging the
accreditation agency on certain issues. Dr. Carlson expressed that he had no
intention of pursuing such possibility to endanger the accreditation of the College,
as the accreditation agency is authorized by U.S. Congress. „Stephanie Zappa
read a motion unanimously adopted by the English subdivision. She read it here
instead of during public comments to address the issues concerned directly to
Dr. Carlson.
On Feb. 9 at its monthly sub-division meeting, the English faculty
passed the following as a formal, unanimous motion. There were
nineteen full-time faculty present and all 19 voted in favor of its
support.
Thus far, the sub-division feels strongly that both
transparency and accountability are lacking in the recent and
current budget cuts.
The sub-division also feels a lack of
communication between faculty and upper administration. We urge
the administration to review its budget cuts affecting the following
areas with a transparent process that will include input from the
English subdivision.
• WRAC Center / Tutorials cuts in staffing
• WRAC Center and Tutorials use of physical space (i.e.,
potential premature move of the WRAC Center)
• Class scheduling (i.e., potential loss of morning classes due
to construction)
• ISLS
• Funding for CHARLIE
• Coordinators' reassigned time.
Also referenced was the President’s prior comment that one of the areas in need
of address from the Accreditation Board is "dialogue," which the English
subdivision says is clearly lacking in the process.
2.2 ASCC. No report.
2
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
February 9th, 2006
2.3 CLPFA. Dave Fouquet reported that the Faculty Association expects the
District to support the faculty in all issues related to academic freedom.
2.4 Public Comments: ISLS Student Karen Jackson expressed the need to save
ISLS. Stating that it is vital to Chabot and needs to be supported. ISLS
Student Deanna Long supports the 40 year old ISLS program as a Cal Works
member with entry and exit issues. ISLS forces logical thinking even though
there is a lack of test taking. ISLS allows students to think outside the box. As
an ADHD learning challenged student, ISLS is a program that works for her.
ISLS Student Mark West said a woman on the street, a former ISLS student, is
such an advocate of the program that she puts someone into the program
every chance she gets. ISLS Student Maria Harrell described the program as
amazing! ISLS provides an open forum that teaches students to think outside
the box. This is just one of many reasons she is in favor of ISLS. ISLS Student
Chris Jacobs explained how ISLS was helpful to him by letting him see how
other thinkers have impacted the world at large. All the ISLS Students
expressed support for ISLS, exalting the program for expanding their
intellectual horizon, connecting ideas of great thinkers across space-time. It
provided them with a forum to discuss and explore ideas beyond taking exams.
Chad Mark Glen recounted the many times he saw ISLS students engaging in
meaningful discussion even after the end of ISLS class before he begins
teaching in the same room.
3.0 ACTION ITEMS
3.1 Revised Educational Master Plan. Nancy Cowan moved to approve
the Revised Educational Master Plan and Francisco Zermeño seconded.
The motion carried. Suggested changes have been implemented. In
particular, 43 FTE increase was scaled back to 30 FTE, and buildings are
planned to provide growth.
3.2 Accreditation Midterm Report. Melinda Matsuda presented the report.
Barbara Ogman moved to approve the Accreditation Midterm Report and
Francisco Zermeño seconded. After discussion the motion carried with a
proviso. Dr. Taylor would revise the section of the accreditation report dealing
with Program Review and ISLS. Senators would read the revision and send in
their electronic vote of “Yes” to approve the revised report, or vote “No” and the
entire report would not be approved.
4.0 DISCUSSION ITEMS
3
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
February 9th, 2006
4.1 ISLS and Program Closure Process. Dr. Susan Sperling explained that,
each semester, any misgivings she had about participating in ISLS relented to
the intellectual vitality the program offers its diverse student body. ISLS offers
a distinctive learning environment that has benefited many students. While in the
last forty years the ISLS program has been a remarkable program that is part of
the Chabot identity. Dr. Carlson informed the ISLS faculty in the January 17,
2006, meeting that the ISLS program is terminated. The ISLS faculty feels that
the decision was made without respect to the program review process, rendering
the effort in such a process throughout the Fall 2005 semester as a charade. In
a demonstration of poor communication, Dr. Carlson had informed the Board of
the intended termination in its December 2006 meeting before first notifying the
ISLS faculty. She felt that, putting aside the issue of the future of ISLS, the
process of shared governance and program review has been egregiously
violated and that such violation portends jeopardy from the administration to
other programs on campus.
Scott Hildreth gave further background regarding ISLS. The ISLS faculty
volunteered to suspend the program after the current cycle ends in Spring 2006,
in order to complete the program review process in order to come back stronger.
Historically, there has been a lack of administrative support. ISLS faculty
members have had to promote the program themselves with no college support
for marketing. Nor were efforts made to customize computer systems to meet
special ISLS needs. The only measure of the program that the administration
seems to care about is WSCH/FTEF (productivity and cost effectiveness). While
the ISLS program was able to meet an acceptable productivity level in the past,
the administration seems unwilling to risk not meeting the acceptable level in the
future; no matter how little the target is missed. Stephanie Zappa noted that, no
matter how the Language Arts Division adjusts its allotted numbers to allow ISLS
to continue, in the end it did not matter because the administration would just
override it.
President Glen summarized the presentation by ISLS faculty and students to
three central areas of concern: 1) Autocratic decisions are made top down, 2)
such autocratic decisions are blows to the collegial consultation and share
governance process, and 3) effectiveness of the program review process is
compromised. Even though the revitalization/discontinuation process has not yet
been formally approved by the Board, it should still be followed by the
administration since it has been approved by both colleges and is ready to go to
the Board. He will take up the issue with the Chancellor on Tuesday.
Francisco Zermeño asked about the cost of ISLS, which Scott Hildreth
responded with an estimated dollar amount. Francisco Zermeño followed up
with what is the amount saved by terminating ISLS. The answer wasn’t clear.
„Mike Absher asks what can we do, to which Dr. Sperling responded that the
program review process should be allowed to continue and without its results
being ignored. „Barbara Ogman expressed that the decision to terminate ISLS
4
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
February 9th, 2006
engenders lack of confidence in administration and shared governance—that the
process feels dishonest when it doesn’t matter what we do.
It was moved, seconded, and unanimously carried that 4.1 be made an action
item, after which a motion is made by Francisco Zermeño and seconded by
Stephanie Zappa in support of ISLS. Ming Ho suggested that the motion
should be revised to reflect the concerns President Glen summarized above,
from which support of ISLS becomes a corollary. It was decided that Stephanie
Zappa, Michael Thompson, and Ming Ho will amend the language of
Francisco Zermeño’s motion while the Senate carried on the day’s business
Michael Thompson, Stephanie Zappa, and Ming Ho returned with
amendments to Francisco Zermeño’s motion. After further discussion, the
following wording was adopted unanimously by the Senate:
In light of recent 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 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.
4.2 District Curriculum Council Charge. The LPC Senate draft and Chad’s
proposed revisions draft were distributed electronically and in paper form with
the Track Changes displayed. President Glen asked for input and feedback.
4.3 Program Introduction Process. Senators received electronic and paper
copies of this document and were encouraged to read it, share it with their
divisions and provide feedback.
4.4 Tree Planting and Naming. Tabled.
5.0 REPORTS
5.1 Senate President’s Report. Tabled.
5
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
February 9th, 2006
5.2 Senate Committees None.
5.3 Senators None.
6.0 GOOD OF THE ORDER
6.1 Future Agenda Items, „Counselors assigned to Divisions, Mike Absher.
„2006-2007 Strategic Plan, Laurie Dockter. „Cheating Update, President
Glen. „50% Law State Task Force, Zappa/Zermeño. „Program Intro
Process, Ron Taylor. „Program Review and Program Closure Process,
Tom Dewit. Construction Effecting Scheduling of Classes, Stephanie
Zappa. Curriculum Committee, Michael Absher.
6.2 Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45.
6.3 Next Meeting: Thursday, February 23rd, at 2:15 p.m. in the Board Room
(Building 200.
6.4 Spring Semester Meetings: 2nd & 4th Thursday, 2:15 - 4:15 p.m., unless
designated “*special”. March 2* & 23; April 6* & 20*; May 4* & 11*
(*Special Meetings— not on 2nd or 4th Thursday).
MH/CMG
6