COLLEGE COUNCIL
FRIDAY, MARCH 5TH, 2010 – 2 P.M., BOARD ROOM
APPROVED MINUTES
ORDER OF BUSINESS
The meeting was called to order by Dr. George Railey at 2:05 p.m.
MEETING ATTENDANCE
Edna Danaher, Gordon Watt, Diane Zuliani, Yvonne Wu Craig, Nancy Soto, Susan May,
Vanessa Cormier, Steven Mireles, Michael Absher, and Catherine Powell.
REVIEW OF MEETING MINUTES
The minutes for the January 22nd, 2010 Council meeting were reviewed and approved.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Update on Public Art Project
Diane Zuliani gave an overview of the Chabot Public Art Project and how the process
came into being. The impetus for the project was a gift of $500,000 from the Board of
Trustees earmarked for public art. Former Trustee Dr. Alison Lewis spearheaded the
project because she believed now was the time to undertake a public art project since
the college was in the midst of modernizing and expanding the campus made possible
by the facilities bond. When the gift was announced in Fall 2007, President-Emeritus Dr.
Robert Carlson tapped Diane to establish a Public Art Committee representing Chabot’s
constituency groups and community members.
One first decision made by the Committee was to approach this project as a “Call for
Entries” process which is the most democratic way of selecting art for institutions. The
“Call for Entries” was launched on Convocation 2009. Applicants were asked to submit
eight images of existing and successful artwork, description of each artwork, and a
statement of interest in Chabot’s project. The Call, which closed November 20, 2009,
returned 622 applications.
The committee began a series of five elimination rounds whittling the 622 applications to
21 semi-finalists. The pool of 21 art finalists are from the Bay Area, California, national,
international, and one Chabot art instructor. In keeping the project as encompassing as
possible, the Committee did not maintain a residency requirement, did not charge an
application fee, and the applications and the elimination rounds were all blind which
meant the artists were nameless. The committee has not seen the names of the
applicants nor the semi-finalists. The semi-finalists have not been contacted and told of
their status. Only the finalists will be contacted.
The project’s campus input phase began February 11th, 2010. To determine the finalists
within the 21 semi-finalists, the Committee wants to know whose work the campus likes
best. A website was created where campus personnel can view the artists’ portfolios,
read their statements, and take an opinion poll to share their likes and dislikes. The
website does not show the artist
names or costs. Campus feedback
will determine who the popular
candidates are which will be an
important key in naming the
finalists. There is no fixed number of
finalists and the number will
depend
on
additional
factors
including choice of indoor and
outdoor art, variety of materials, and
price range. The Committee has
set a total budget of $200,000 for
1
Office of the President (510) 723-6640  FAX (510) 723-7126  25555 Hesperian Boulevard, Hayward CA 94545
COLLEGE COUNCIL
FRIDAY, MARCH 5TH, 2010 – 2 P.M., BOARD ROOM
any one art work (includes labor, material, transport cost, and installation). With a
$500,000 budget, there will be at least two pieces of artwork purchased.
Questions Diane gets asked most often are: (1) What is it going to look like? (2) Where is
it going to go? and (3) What is it going to be about? Diane answered the above questions
by reading a section of the prospectus of the Request for Qualifications that artists read
when they applied.
“This RFQ and its subsequent selection process were developed by the Chabot Public
Art Committee which is comprised of 2 faculty, 2 staff, 2 students, 2 administrators, 2
community representatives, and a chair. Some members of the committee are artists
and/or are art experts, some are not. The committee developed this RFQ with two goals
in mind, to honor the creative gifts of artists and to honor the will of campus. For artists
we have eased the restrictions on creativity whenever possible, making
recommendations but no demands with respect to artwork themes, installation locations,
style, media or exact budgets. The campus has developed a selection process that
actively involves the participation of all campus constituencies. While the committee will
seek guidance from one or more art experts outside Chabot, we will also rely upon the
largely non-expert attitudes and opinions of our campus. We have chosen this approach
because we believe in shared governance and because we believe a successful art
project at Chabot must rely as much upon Chabot expertise as upon art expertise.”
When discussing themes with artists, the Committee put forth “multi-culturalism and
diversity, empowerment through education, education as a life-long journey, active and
compassionate citizenship, and the place of the individual relative to a larger world. In an
effort to encourage artistic freedom, however, other things will be considered as well. We
encourage our RFQ finalists to learn about our college and engage in dialogue with
interested members of our community.”
The Committee encouraged artists to be part of the determining process, with Chabot
weighing in and taking into consideration sites that may be impacted by facilities plan
and construction.
The finalists will be asked to visit Chabot, walk the grounds, talk to staff and students,
and find out what is important to Chabot, and what is appropriate. Over summer the
finalists will create a formal proposal for an original work of art they’ll propose for our
campus. These artist proposals will be exhibited in the Art Gallery this Fall and then the
campus will vote.
Additional questions from Council: 1) Will the placement of art be in new construction
areas only? No. Doug Horner suggested consideration of areas that have already been
addressed by the Facilities Plan. He advised that the Committee steer clear of areas that
have not been addressed and may undergo construction five years from now. According
to Diane, relocating a public work of art once it has been sited is costly and perhaps
legally costly as well, because
Chabot will uphold the Visual Artist
Rights Act. Moving a site specific
work of art will not do the college
any good. Diane emphasized that
the art works will not just be placed
How did the Committee solicit
in newly constructed areas. 2)
artists? The Committee used the
system called CaFÉ system which is
an
on-line
application
management system designed by a
2
Office of the President (510) 723-6640  FAX (510) 723-7126  25555 Hesperian Boulevard, Hayward CA 94545
COLLEGE COUNCIL
FRIDAY, MARCH 5TH, 2010 – 2 P.M., BOARD ROOM
non-profit arts group in Denver and they have 100,000 registered users. The Committee
used the California Arts Commission website and sent marketing and informational
materials to all art departments and arts schools in California. 3) Idea of price range?
Large outdoor metal sculptures have the biggest price tag. All artists were cognizant of
the $200,000 price tag limit so most of the artwork in their portfolios are within the set
budget. Within certain portfolios, there are works included that are more costly because
the artists wanted to show the committee what they can do. 4) How do community
members take the poll since they do not have a W-number? A group of 20
community members were preselected by the Committee. These members include art
leaders, art advocates, and various community leaders who are associated with Chabot.
5) How does Chabot through the Committee assure quality of the artwork? The
artists will sign a thorough contract. The Americans for the Arts has a model contract for
commissioning agreement and can be modified to suit our purposes. The formal
proposal will come with a specific budget and will also state the brand names of the
materials used and maintenance instructions. During the fabrication process, the artists
will submit periodic progress reports, as well as receipts, informing us how the materials
and the project are coming together. The Committee has a technical review staff
comprised of representatives from administration, Business Services, facilities, and
Maintenance & Operations to provide another layer of expertise.
Diane guided the Council through the art project polling process. To date, there have
been 100 respondents. The poll closes March 19th, 2010. Dr. Railey thanked Diane and
the Public Art Committee and shared appreciation for their hard work.
AGENDA ITEMS
Commencement 2010 Update- Director of Student Life Nancy Soto recognized and
thanked staff who have participated in Commencement over the years: Admissions &
Records, Student Services, ASCC, the Bookstore, Chabot Foundation, M&O, the Music
Department and the President’s Office. Feedback from Commencement 2009 will be
taken into account for this year’s planning activities, particularly logistics and technical
recommendations.
Nancy solicited Council for input and suggestions for a keynote speaker. Some names
mentioned are: Hayward Mayor Michael Sweeney, State Senator Ellen Corbett, State
Assembly Member Mary Hayashi, Undersecretary of Education and former Chancellor of
Foothill-De Anza Community College District Martha Kantor, former Chancellor of
Chabot-Las Positas Community College District Susan Cota, former CLPCCD Board of
Trustee Member, Dr. Alison Lewis, Journalist Rebecca Corral from KCBS Newsradio,
and stage performer Val Diamond formerly from Beach Blanket Babylon. Because Dr.
Alison Lewis understands Chabot history, and with her leading the way with the Public
Art Project, Vanessa Cormier felt she would be a great choice for this year’s keynote
speaker.
Michael Absher felt last year’s
received, but there were not
to sit. Nancy said ASCC, which
additional chairs will be available if
commencement reception was well
enough chairs available for people
sponsored the event, will make sure
needed.
Progress with Accreditation- Dr.
George Railey said the College
3
Office of the President (510) 723-6640  FAX (510) 723-7126  25555 Hesperian Boulevard, Hayward CA 94545
COLLEGE COUNCIL
FRIDAY, MARCH 5TH, 2010 – 2 P.M., BOARD ROOM
received reaffirmation of our accreditation which is a credit to the institution and the hard
work of everyone who put together the Self-Study Report. Chabot received eight
recommendations, six are college specific, and two are district and college combined.
One example of a district and college combined recommendation is how the college and
district budgets work. The College and District will work together to clarify how money is
allocated district wide.
George said that of all recommendations, Recommendation #2 is the one we need to file
an update report to the Accrediting Commission by October 15th, 2010. Chabot will need
to clarify its program review process so everyone understands it. We must combine the
unit planning process into program review, making it a single and simpler process, and
make clear how this planning connects with resource allocation. This report needs to be
drafted by mid-May so the shared governance process is followed and Board approved
by September.
In anticipation of this recommendation, the Program Review Steering Committee had its
first meeting on December 20th, 2009, with representation from IPBC, Program Review
Committee, Budget Committee, and one dean. Julie Slark from the California Community
College Brain Trust was the moderator. The Program Review Steering Committee took a
look at our program review and unit planning process to see how and where the system:
• can be streamlined;
• can be made better and easier for faculty;
• determine the length of the process. The Accreditation Team could not tell how long
our program review process took.
From this first meeting came a list of items Chabot needs to work on to make the process
better. Since the beginning of Spring, the Program Review Steering Committee has
been meeting weekly for two hours. The Committee has it synthesized to a three-year
process: the first year taking a deep look at the data. The second and third year will be
an analysis of the data, unit and resource plan that has been produced.
George worked with Jeannine Methe to reprogram the computer system so faculty can
now save files. Before one can only view data and thousands of sheets of paper had to
be printed to give staff information. Now files can be downloaded. George has hired a
Federal Work Study student to download files and convert them to a PDF format. This
data, along with information files from Institutional Research, will be uploaded into the
Program Review website where faculty will go to obtain data.
Accreditation Time Line Activities- Continue to work on program review; will be
implemented Fall 2010; work that has been completed in the past will be retained.
On Flex Day March 19th, Chabot will identify two program/discipline levels and work with
the Student and Learning Outcomes & Assessment Cycle (SLOAC) Committee which
will in turn help the College address Recommendation #1 which is to identify, assess, act
on the assessment results for
every course in our curriculum.
Chabot has 1,400 approved
courses. Therefore, SLOs must be
developed for each course, assess
and act on the assessment results
for each one at the course,
program and institutional levels.
Chabot and all community colleges
state-wide have until 2012 to
complete this process.
4
Office of the President (510) 723-6640  FAX (510) 723-7126  25555 Hesperian Boulevard, Hayward CA 94545
COLLEGE COUNCIL
FRIDAY, MARCH 5TH, 2010 – 2 P.M., BOARD ROOM
Chabot needs to file its Mid-Term Report in Fall 2012. All California community colleges
are required to file a Mid-Term Report three years following their comprehensive report.
Chabot will start writing its Mid-Term Report in Fall 2011.
In Fall 2015 Chabot’s Comprehensive Report is due, and will begin writing this report
starting in Fall 2014.
On Flex Day, March 19th, George will apprise the campus on the college’s accreditation
progress and timeline schedule during the morning opening session.
George thanked the hard work and support of Michael Absher and the academic team,
Program Review Committee, Carole Splendore, Carolyn Arnold, Tom DeWit, and
Jeannine Methe. George encouraged continued feedback and recommendations for
improvement. George gave special thanks to Yvonne Wu Craig, “…who brings all the
pieces together on paper, charts and graphs so the College can visualize what we have
conceptualize’”.
Diane Zuliani thanked Dr. Barberena for getting the accreditation process up and running
and got the college to complete its Self-Study report on time.
Educational Master Planning & Facilities Master Planning- This item was to be
presented by Dr. Barberena who did not attend due to illness; therefore, the item was
tabled for the next meeting. Yvonne Wu Craig shared that Dr. Barberena felt that as part
of Accreditation, it is time to review the Educational Master Plan & Facilities Master Plan.
Dr. Barberena has charged Yvonne and JoAnn Galliano, IPBC Co-Chairs, with looking
for a facilitator who will help Chabot with the planning and writing process for both plans.
Dr. Barberena would like it to be a grounds-up process with the facilitator visiting all
divisions to discuss existing programs and the College’s vision for the future. By spring or
early summer, IPBC will put out a RFQ for a facilitator so specific criteria can be set.
Other Business
ASCC Vice President Steven Mireles asked about budget cuts and the status of the
Bookstore. According to Vice President Mireles, as part of an understanding, ASCC gave
the Bookstore funds for its construction, and in return was promised to receive a
percentage of Bookstore profits. Vice President Mireles said ASCC has not received any
funds because the Bookstore has been operating in the red. If the Bookstore becomes
privatized, will ASCC get a percentage of the Bookstore’s gross income, or receive the
amount ASCC initially put in? George will discuss this with Dr. Barberena and Yulian
Ligioso.
MEETING ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:27 p.m.
bw
5
Office of the President (510) 723-6640  FAX (510) 723-7126  25555 Hesperian Boulevard, Hayward CA 94545