CHABOT COLLEGE ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE
Board Room, Building 200
th
Thursday, December 15 , 2005 – 2:15 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.
A P P R O V E D M I N UT E S
Submitted by Sally Stickney
Senator Attendance: Applied Technology & Business (Michael Absher); Counseling (Sally
Stickney & TBA); Health, Physical Education, & Athletics (Nancy
Cowan & Ross Shoemaker); Arts & Humanities (William Johnson);
Language Arts (Stephanie Zappa & Francisco Zermeño); Library
(Norman Buchwald); Science & Mathematics (Dave Fouquet & Ming
Ho); and Social Sciences (Barbara Ogman & Michael Thompson);
Anne Brichacek (Adjunct Faculty).
Guests:
Dr. Ron Taylor (Vice President, Academic Services); Melinda
Matsuda (Vice President, Student Services);
Presiding Officer:
President Chad Mark Glen.
ITEM
1.0 GENERAL FUNCTIONS
1.1 Call to Order: President Glen called the meeting to order at 2:15 p.m.
1.2 Approval of the Minutes: Francisco Zermeño moved to approve the
Minutes of December 8, 2005 and Michael Thompson seconded. The
motion carried with minor revisions to the minutes. Stephanie Zappa
wanted the minutes to reflect that her colleagues in Language Arts say
that decisions are made top down.
2.0 REPORT S I
2.1 College President. Dr. Robert Carlson spoke about the Board Meeting
in general, outlining the Classified personnel cuts at Chabot College that
will go to Board in February. The Chancellor has a committee reviewing
all the changes. Dr. Carlson will have a college-wide meeting on
December 20th to outline the budget cut plans for the next six weeks.
„The next topic was the facilities, and major building projects. The
swimming pool will on the list of changes starting in January. There will
be a re-routing of the back areas of the college near the tennis courts.
„Dr. Carlson spoke to ISLS’ questions on their program review. He will
be meeting with the faculty of this program on December 19th. He
suggested they use the consultative process to keep the program or
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
December 15th, 2005
review it. He said they can improve the program, but won’t guarantee they
can come back in one year. It would be given fair consideration. Honest
hearing of change. At this point it is suspended until it’s a viable program, no
guarantees, and if they do nothing it is discontinued. Michael Thompson,
asked at what point could ISLS come back? Is it out of their hands? Dr.
Carlson replied that students could get what they need already without ISLS.
„Dave Fouquet asked about the Health Information Technology (HIT)
program and why it was discontinued. Dr. Carlson replied, “We did a careful
analysis“ before deciding to close the program. Dave Fouquet, “Seems like
Chabot is taking more of the cuts”. Dr. Carlson didn’t see it that way.
„Stephanie Zappa asked Dr. Carlson about the district hiring personnel using
the Bond money. Also, when the Bond money is gone, will these hires still be
on the district payroll? Dr. Carlson indicated that the hires would temporary
and there would be no obligation to make them permanent. Dave Fouquet
stated that the Assistant Controller position is not a bond position. Not sure
about the administrative or network ITS positions. President Glen asked
Fouquet if he would find information, as to why the District office is adding
personnel and the colleges are eliminating positions. „Michael Thompson
wanted to know about the guidelines of the budget allocations and what they
were? Dave Fouquet said the allocation model is not in place because of the
cuts. The district’s portion (allocation) of the budget is 14.2%. The district is
not as pressed as the colleges are to make cuts. Michael Thompson asked
why couldn’t the percentage be tweaked? There was no response. „Dave
Fouquet further stated that it’s not a good idea to cut services from the
students. That would be an issue with HIT discontinuance. It would be good
to see the analysis done on the discontinuance of HIT. It should be available
for review. Dave Fouquet used an example of a possible 50 FTE coming to
the college for this program, with the other classes also needed by these
students; we could possibly loose 100 FTE and what is saved?! A quarter of
a million dollars could be lost, when the student base is shrunk. President
Glen suggested a review of the allocation model to determine if a
readjustment and reallocation to the colleges, however it is very political.
„Michael Thompson proposed a possible resolution from the Academic
Senate on these issues. Barbara Ogman asked if there were any programs
that would not have a ripple affect of lost classes or students? Is there the
chance of this type of loss every time a program is on discontinuance? Dave
Fouquet, said that in shrinking the programs, we lose students, could we
come up with a way to streamline programs? Are there questions we could
ask of those programs in jeopardy? Francisco Zermeño stated that, “Chabot
is being shrunk!” „Dave Fouquet, “Look at how LPC is being encroached by
Delta and DVC college districts”. We want Chabot to stay the same size,
which we need to grow in a responsible way, utilizing our urban areas.
2.2 ASCC. No report.
2
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
December 15th, 2005
2.3 CLPFA. Dave Fouquet reported on the board meeting. Fouquet is very
concerned on the revenue issues. . „The part-time seniority provisions were
passed. „There is a movement to change the 50% law in the future. The
initiative would put the librarians & counselors on the instruction side of the
50% law. On the surface, this may appear to be a positive declaration as to
who’s treated as faculty, as though that were at issue. But it’s not; the key point
here is that the change would make it far easier for districts to be in compliance
with the law, by allowing them to claim they’re spending more on instruction. As
it now stands, the law helps drive dollars to faculty salaries while limiting what
districts can spend on administration, because it requires set non-instruction
costs to balance with salaries and benefits for personnel who serve in
classroom. The proposed changes would weaken all that. President Glen said
we must be aware of the implications of the proposed changes to the 50% law.
Dave Fouquet said the implications are to pay the faculty less in salaries and
spend more on non-instructional personnel, including administration. Francisco
Zermeño, believes the Senate needs to be proactive and show a strong stance
and let the State Senate know we don’t agree with the changes. Stephanie
Zappa feels that we need to vigorously oppose it. Go to the State Senate
website to get an overview and be more clear about the significance of the
change. President Glen will cut and paste the information to distribute to the
Senators.
2.4 Senate President’s Report: President Glen submitted the Educational Master
Plan and the reason why Board of Trustees tabled the action for approval. It
was tabled so it could be sent back for more college-wide input on the
information in the Educational Master Plan. Senators are encouraged to check
with each of their divisions and compare their areas/disciplines in the
Educational Master plan with their unit plans. Faculty may want to cut and
paste from their current unit plans to update the Educational Master Plan.
„President Glen explained that he is addressing the ASCC representative’s
concerns about the legality of the Student cheating/plagiarism reporting
process the Senate has approved. He and Melinda Matsuda have asked Joel
Kinnamon to seek legal counsel on the matter. He will report back after we
hear back from legal counsel. „District Curriculum Council (DCC) draft charge
changes were discussed. President Glen asked the Senate if they wanted to
add to the proposed changes from the LPC Academic Senate. Barbara
Ogman, “Can we see about proxy voting?” Ming Ho added, “Why not have a
proxy, especially if the group needs a quorum?” Stephanie Zappa, “Allow for
proxy.” Glen explained that this had been discussed and that the Chancellor
and LPC were not in favor if proxy voting, but agreed that language about
having a quorum needed to be added.
Ron Taylor, clarified that
experience/expertise is required of people who participate in this group and
proxy voting would not be the best way to go. More discussion ensued. Glen,
polled the Senators and it was agreed to establish a quorum rule. Stephanie
Zappa asked about making students voting members. Glen was in favor of
this, but LPC is not. LPC’s Curriculum Committee is trying to prevent students
3
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
December 15th, 2005
on that committee from having voting rights, and would most likely not agree to
granting students on the DCC a vote.
2.5 Public Comments: None.
3.0 ACTION ITEMS
3.0 Faculty Hiring Procedure: Michael Thompson moved to approve the Faculty
Hiring Procedure as amended below and Stephanie Zappa seconded. The
motion carried. „President Glen reviewed the Senate’s edits to the draft
Faculty Hiring Procedure. The Senate agreed the changes accurately reflected
the revisions made at the last Senate meeting. Discussion centered on the
level two interviews. Michael Thompson asked about the College President
excluding people from the interview process. Barbara Ogman asked that it
stipulate that someone from the level one committee be forwarded to sit on the
level two committee. Ming Ho asked why restrict who is on the committee?
Francisco Zermeño said there should be four faculty on the committee. Glen
said that for smaller disciplines, the level one committee should bring in
someone from outside to fill out the committee. Glen asked Dr. Taylor, for
clarification on the number of successful applicants forwarded to the second
level committee. Ron Taylor replied that not more than three people are
brought forward for the second level. There was discussion on sending the
rankings to the second level committee. Glen read the last sentence on page
three, “The committee shall not send the candidates to stage two with the
ranking indicated.” Glen asked the Senate if they wanted to keep the last
sentence. A vote was called, and Senators were in agreement to keep the
wording as read. Ming Ho suggested the following language for page 3, part d.
“A committee member must attend all interviews and whenever not able to do
so, must withdraw from the committee.” The Senate agreed to this change.
Stephanie Zappa pointed out that the name “Personnel Office” should be
changed to “Human Resources Office”. Glen agreed to complete the revisions
and distribute the updated approved version to the Senators.
4.0 DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.1 The 2006-2007 Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is not approved and is still
in draft form. Ming Ho stated that the A and B priority order should be at the
front of the document. First it should list the needs of the community and be
more specific. Norman Buchwald, measuring outcomes is important. What
types of measurements are there for this plan? Ming Ho programs need to be
assessed in response to community needs. Barbara Ogman stated that the
first part should be an objective that is accurate. It’s also not user friendly.
Stephanie Zappa believes the language in the document is not user friendly
and is poorly written. Discussion was tabled until the Institutional Planning and
Budget Council distributes an IPBC approved document.
4
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
December 15th, 2005
4.2 Educational Master Plan 2005-2015 Revisions. President Glen said that a
lot of the specific goals will come out of IPBC. There should be more focus and
connection between the Ed Master Plan, the Strategic Plan, and Unit Plans.
Ming Ho stated that Basic Skills should be at the top of the list, as a priority.
Basic Math and English Skills were to be a priority, and Basic Skills is now in
the middle of the list… now the Math Lab has no funding. We need to stay
focused on the most important goals, rather than rotating them constantly.
Glen summarized by saying that goals also need to be measurable, and to be
more concrete. The sentiment is that the Strategic Plan is poorly put together.
A Senate Subcommittee was formed to look at priorities for basic skills: Michael
Thompson, Sally Stickney, Stephanie Zappa (or Language Arts faculty), Ming
Ho (and the Math Department), and others who are interested. Ming Ho
agreed we should go to divisions to ask questions about revisions to the
document. Glen suggested faculty look at a one-year focus or goal and making
Basic Skills a priority. Senator should plan to have information at the first
Senate meeting in January.
It was moved, seconded, and the motion carried not to extend the meeting and
adjourn at this point in the agenda.
4.3 College Council and IPBC Charges. Tabled.
4.4 Tree Planting and Naming. Tabled.
5.0 REPORTS II
5.1. Senate Committees
5.2. Senators
6.0 GOOD OF THE ORDER
6.1 Future Agenda Items, „Counselors Assigned to Divisions (Mike Absher).
6.2 Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
6.3 Next Meeting: Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 2:15 p.m. Board Room.
6.4 Spring Semester Meetings: 2nd & 4th Thursday, 2:15 - 4:15 p.m., unless
designated “*special”. January 26; February 9 & 23; March 2* & 23; April 6*
& 20*; May 4* & 11* (*Special Meetings— not on 2nd or 4th Thursday).
SS/CMG
5