CHABOT COLLEGE ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE
Board Room, Building 200
th
Thursday, November 17 , 2005 – 2:20 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
A P P R O V E D M I N UT E S
Submitted by Nancy Cowan
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).
Guests:
Dr. Ron Taylor (Vice President, Academic Services).
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 2:20 p.m.
1.2 Approval of the Minutes: Francisco Zermeño moved to approve the
Minutes of November 10, 2005 and Michael Absher second. The
motion carried. „Michael Absher said that the District calendar showed
three Senate meetings in December and asked for clarification.
President Glen said he would follow up by research.
2.0 REPORT S
2.1 College President. No report.
2.2 ASCC. No report.
2.3 CLPFA. No report.
2.4 Public Comments:
Michael Thompson wondered what was
developing regarding the ASCC and the Social Justice Speakers Series.
Chad Mark Glen remarked that although there has been criticism of the
ASCC's handling of this matter, he felt the students were in the process
of “learning” what they needed to do to make such controversial ASCC
meetings viable. Michael Thompson said he believed it was more than
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 17th, 2005
that and he would like to hear from them directly. Melinda Matsuda has
verbalized to Chad that she was not well received while trying to serve as
moderator. President Glen said that he would approach ASCC if they didn’t
attend today’s meeting, to try to discover what issues may be “brewing.”
Stephanie Zappa said she was an advisor for the WAIT club and said that her
group was very concerned and upset also. Sally Stickney echoed that her
contact with students indicated some unrest and concern as well. President
Glen said he would follow up on this with the ASCC
Chad Mark Glen noted that the approved Student Cheating Report and
Resolution Form was in the Senate packet. Unless there were some lastminute concerns, we would not discuss the student cheating document any
further. Board of Trustees member, Dr. Hal Gin, commended the Senate
regarding our work on the Student Cheating document. If there are no other
comments it will be presented tomorrow at College Council.
3.0 ACTION ITEMS
3.1 Board Policy On Copyright. Francisco Zermeño moved to approve the Board
Policy On Copyright and Nancy Cowan second. The motion carried. Discussion
was brief. Francisco Zermeño asked if we were to post it in our Division
workrooms. President Glen answered affirmatively. It will be taken to
Chancellor’s Council.
3.2 Board Policy 2313 On Naming Buildings. Francisco Zermeño moved to
approve Board Policy 2313 On Naming Buildings, adding the Executive Directors
of both Foundations to the Building Naming Committee and Sally Stickney
second. The motion carried. Francisco Zermeño stated that he would like to
have the wording such that those who were living as well as those who had
passed on could have buildings named after them. President Glen stated that
the policy allows for that after someone has been retired for two years.
Stephanie Zappa noted that there might be a potential for naming a building
something like “Enron” President Glen remarked that he had brought up this
issue at Chancellor’s Council and that the Board can consider renaming the
building and the naming wasn’t necessarily in perpetuity. Francisco Zermeño
shared some of the history for naming buildings.
3.3 Senate Reporting/Recommending Responsibilities in Shared Governance.
President Glen requested that we focus on how we can, as a governing body
and an institution, be more effective in a shared governance mode. Barbara
Ogman wanted to know if there was any difference between what documents we
had in hand and what is in the Shared Governance document. President Glen
indicated they were the same.
Mike Absher asked a parliamentary question: Can we take a Discussion Item
and make a resolution? President Glen said that if it was an urgent matter, with
2
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 17th, 2005
a two-thirds vote, we could make the Discussion Item an Action Item. Francisco
Zermeño moved to make Discussion Item 4.1 into Action Item 3.3 and Nancy
Cowan second. The motion unanimously carried.
Francisco Zermeño moved that the Senate report directly to the College
President and then the Board of Trustees and move College Council reporting to
“other”. Norman Buchwald seconded the motion, which carried after the
following discussion.
President Glen said if we ever go directly to the Board of Trustees, it will convey
that we have by-passed the president and that we have failed to successfully
work within the our shared governance model. Barbara Ogman noted that if you
by-pass a layer and if the ASCC has the same abilities, then change the
organization chart to reflect this. President Glen said he mentioned to Dr.
Carlson that IPBC doesn’t seem to be working well and College Council isn’t
working as it was designed. The president indicated he was amenable to
revising the shared governance structure to make it more effective. Mike Absher
queried what the alternative might be if we had a weak president and a weak
Senate, what would be the outcome (if we chose the route of not going to
College Council).
Michael Thompson wanted to know how College Council came to be. President
Glen said that Dr. Carlson wanted a representative body where all could have
access to the President and decisions could be made with everyone at the table.
It was suggested that if IPBC isn’t working then a reworking of the governance
structure should be looked at. If IPBC isn’t feeling empowered and effective then
maybe the work could be folded into the College Council’s responsibilities. It was
suggested that College Council and IPBC should decide where they want to be
on the organizational chart. Sally Stickney felt that we should always have the
connection with the president. Barbara Ogman suggested that all committees
report to the president. Francisco Zermeño felt there was no reason for Senate
to report to the College Council. Sally Stickney said she didn’t feel the Senate’s
reporting charge should always be sent to College Council.
Ming Ho commented that being in the leadership capacity, if the College Council
takes the decision-making power, it takes away from the leadership of the college
president. President Glen said he thought the president wanted to avoid many
“mini” meetings. He wanted a place where everybody can be at the table at the
same time to discuss things. Mike Absher believes that there should be
standing reports at the College Council from various governance groups.
Ross Shoemaker said that with this change, if we really like the president, we
would feel comfortable with the organizational chart. If we had a president we
didn’t like we would want to change it. He believes that our job is to recommend
and advise to the college president.
3
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 17th, 2005
President Glen said he discussed the Academic Senate, IPBC, and College
council governance structures with Dr. Carlson. The relationship of College
Council and IPBC and with these two groups having all this power, why would
someone go to the Senate? Dr. Carlson said that he believed this body was
very important. College Council is an arena for Senate reports informing others
(classified and administration) about what is going on in the Senate. Mike
Absher said the only fear is that when we get to a structure like this, IPBC and
College Council, sometimes he believes that Senate is left out of the mix.
President Glen said that Dr. Carlson assured him nothing that should go through
Academic Senate would go through the College Council and IPBC without
consulting or notifying us. Barbara Ogman asked about the whole shared
governance idea and said it has been very clear that the “subcommittees” have
no power and can only recommend decisions to the larger College Council and
then to the Chancellor charged with making the final decisions. She further said
that she felt in the face of lack of strong leadership, the feeling of low morale and
lack of “powerfulness” is common in her experience.
Dr. Carlson told Chad that he, as College President, has the authority to make
decisions. However, we in Senate have the power to shape the ultimate
decisions because they (President and Chancellor) consult with us. They are
accountable and if they don’t follow the processed agreed to, that is where the
struggle begins. Francisco Zermeño said he thought the College Council was
like a clique. He felt that shared governance was our link with the Board of
Trustees. Zermeño said, “Who is this College Council!” President Glen said he
mentioned to Dr. Carlson that the College Council had not been doing
meaningful work but instead had become a reporting venue. Dr. Carlson sees
the College Council as more of a public forum where all governance groups meet
with the President, rather than to have groups with special interests go to him
through the “back door” and inundate him with lots of meetings. President Glen
said in previous experience, prior to College Council, meeting with the President
felt like a group of power brokers. Chad said he prefers having an open meeting
where all constituents are present during a discussion. Michael Thompson said
that in a way we are asked to do a lot. It is a little disheartening when we develop
unit plans; enrollment management and then we are told the decisions need to
be made very quickly. What is the point of all this? If we are always in the crisis
mode, ultimately that process takes a long time. The college operates at a
different speed, the result is to form a committee and make decisions quickly. It
is impossible to be really informed about the decisions we have to make. What
do we do about this? President Glen remarked that by being involved, we are
still informing the process. Barbara Ogman said that the process we undertake
in the Senate where we review and revise, but then administrators make the
decision. President Glen said the Program Discontinuance document is still
going to have relevance in that it guides the Chancellor’s decision-making
process. Mike Absher noted that he had reviewed several state senate websites
and there are many places complaining about shared governance because when
you try to include everyone, it is a “shared dysfunctionality.” He said we are
4
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 17th, 2005
asked by the governance structure in front of us to participate and if we don’t, we
shouldn’t complain. He agrees with Michael Thompson that we are very, very
busy with many demands on us. We do have power, and he does see the
effects of documents brought before the Senate. He notes that we really don’t
have a choice. We really have to put effort into it. Administrators are paid to
make the decisions. If we don’t “find the time” then we hurt ourselves because
we aren’t able to be there and many other faculty will be hurt, too, even though or
because they aren’t there. Mike also spoke about the administrator imposed
crisis mode of getting things done. He reflected on a previous administrator’s
style, which was to go to the Friday afternoon meeting (now morphed into the
College Council). The governance structure now is really better than it was at
that time. We need to “pick our fights.” He believes that if we took issues to the
Board of Trustees they would listen to us. Francisco Zermeño agreed that we
do take our issues to the Board of Trustees. Francisco feels that we are
inundated with busy work so we don’t create problems. He believes we should
continue the way we are going and do not take issues to College Council and
IPBC. Stephanie Zappa added our participation is really important. We will only
hurt ourselves if we don’t take the time. She agreed with Michael that it is
virtually impossible to find the time to do these assignments. She also noted that
we draft policies (e.g. Program Discontinuance) and review them carefully and
write revisions and then-poof, they are gone. She said she felt that the policy
making comes from top down; when we talk about shared governance on the
“ground” not in “theory.” Barbara Ogman said that even if we had the time to
read all documents and attend all meetings, she believes that rather than shared
governance it is a shared delusion. Everyone conspires to believe there is this
process that doesn’t work the way she wants it to work. She would like to see it
the way it works in our federal government whereby the constituency can
influence change. It is just sort of wheel spinning. President Glen remarked that
administrators throughout the state don’t like shared governance either, because
you have to go through this slow, long, drawn out process. He added that he has
seen the difference in the decision making process when constituent
representatives are not at the table to make the decision. Being at the table
influences the decision. Michael Thompson says that although he doesn’t see
this as ever happening, the only way to really accomplish things is to have fewer
responsibilities (teaching students) in order for us to do the job effectively. There
should be some consideration of time off for these decision-making processes.
He doesn’t like being a part of this charade.
After further discussion President Glen summarized the Senate’s complaints
„Faculty feel overworked. „Better administrative planning is needed to avoid
management by crisis. „There is a backlash from the K. H. Consulting and
additional Strategic Cost Management workload. „Encourage the Chancellor not
to exercise the timeline escape clause for the Program Discontinuance of
academic programs. „Ask the Chancellor to come to Senate, if she decides to
use the escape clause, to explain her reasons since they will affect faculty.
5
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 17th, 2005
Sally Stickney said that it is reflective that we are representatives of our division
members. How are we heard in the governance process? She felt that looking
through this governance manual is difficult for us. The Senate is the faculty’s
voice and we are stronger for it. Stephanie Zappa said that shared governance
is much better than that which is not shared. We are dead in the water without it.
She said if it wasn’t really effectual, then we really don’t have time for it.
She declared that many of her constituents did not feel as if they had really been
involved in decision-making. The question of “how can we be a more effective
body” should be discussed. President Glen asked why she believed the faculty
didn’t feel as if they had any “say” in the matter. Some of it is lack of time, lack of
having the background (e.g., budget, K. H. packet with short turnaround and
difficult to interpret), and then there is the thing of working on developing the
policy and then being told that we have to make critical decisions.
4.0 DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.1 Senate Reporting/Recommending Responsibilities in Shared Governance.
Francisco Zermeño moved to make this an action item and Nancy Cowan
second. The motion carried with the requisite two-thirds majority. Please see
Action Item 3.3 above.
4.2 Faculty Hiring Process. President Glen worked on the draft document with
LPC Academic Senate President, Melissa Korber. A draft policy will be
presented at the December 8th Senate meeting
4.3 District Curriculum Council. This is in the district policy as a governing
group. The group initially began working in conjunction with accrediting charge
to work on number of units for the AA. On the document discussed, Charge of
the group…
Change Curriculum Committee to Curriculum Council.
„Discussion centered on bullet # 3 change support to acknowledge. „Bullet
#4 Ming Ho wondered why the two curriculum committees couldn’t agree.
Board of Trustees wants the two colleges to be as close to equal as possible.
President Glen clarified that the District Curriculum Council would be the
mediator in instances where agreement was problematic. „Norm Buchwald
asked for clarification about the last bullet, which seems to be stating that the
mutual agreement would have recommendations about it.
Dr. Taylor
acknowledged that the statement should read “not” mutual agreement.
„Voting membership, strike the ex-officio VP of Academic Services (CC and
LPC) and move it to voting members. Add 2 instructional deans (CC and LPC)
to ex-officio members. Strike Faculty association representatives. And make it
2 ex-officio faculty association representatives (CCLPC). „Mike Absher
suggested that perhaps there might be a curriculum issue that may be a
6
ACADEMIC/FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 17th, 2005
contractual issue so it is good to have union representation. „Stephanie
Zappa requested a draft of these changes be developed. President Glen said
he would do it tonight and e-mail it to all of us. This will be an action item the
next meeting.
4.4 Educational Master Plan. President Glen requested Senators review the Ed
Master Plan and leave copies in their division workrooms for faculty to give
input. Senators should forward concerns to Dr. Taylor. President Glen asked
of Dr. Taylor what might happen since Senate could not move on this item until
December 8. If the document has already gone to print and Senate has
revisions or concerns, we could inform the Board of Trustees that, although it
was too late to make the print deadline, the following reflect the issues of the
constituency.
5.0 REPORTS. No Reports.
6.0 GOOD OF THE ORDER
6.1 Future Agenda Items.
„College Counsel Charge (Barbara Ogman),
„Counselors Assigned to Divisions (Mike Absher), „Tree Planting and Naming
(Francisco Zermeño). Senators are to e-mail verbiage to Chad by December
5th regarding the agenda item associated with their name.
6.2 Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
6.3 Next Meeting: Thursday, December 8, 2005 at 2:15 p.m. Board Room.
6.4 Fall Meetings: 2nd & 4th Thursday, 2:15 - 4:15 p.m., unless designated
“*special”. 12/15*.
NC/CMG
7