College Council
MINUTES OF FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7TH, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 1:06 p.m. by President Celia Barberena.
President Barberena reminded the Council that College Council meetings need to start promptly
and there is a need for the Council to function for the purposes as it is intended. Her goal is to move
the meetings along.
MINUTES
President Barberena made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 3rd, 2008 meeting,
Chad seconded the move, and the Council unanimously approved the minutes at 1:10 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
Proposal for an Academic Policy Council– Jane Church presented a proposal to form and create
an Academic Policy Council. She felt there are decisions occurring on campus pertaining to
academic policy that are not being addressed. Many colleges have active academic policy
committees. Today’s draft document provides two proposals: Proposal A and Proposal B.
Last Spring Jane reviewed a proposal to start this committee with Academic Senate President
Diane Zuliani and President Barberena to get their viewpoints about this proposed committee. She
was advised to present it to Academic Senate, Vice President of Academic Services, and College
Council.
Academic Senate supported having an Academic Policy Council, although an Academic & Student
Services Council has existed prior. Jim Matthews raised these questions: Should this proposed
Council fall under a subcommittee of Senate, or be an Academic Services Council? Chad Mark
Glen sees a need for this type of shared governance group. Depending on whom the senate
president is and the composition of senators, there may be a perceived territorial tug of war as
some fall under 10+1 and academic and professional matters. If these issues are on a Senate
agenda, it may slow the agenda and fill meetings with these issues. Dr. Marcia Corcoran was
concerned that if this fell under Academic Senate, only academic senators would be voting on
issues that need a broader audience.
Dr. Barberena felt the Council could approve Proposal A if Academic Senate agrees with this
document. Gene Groppetti felt this should be a policy-making body and not a body involved with a
lot of process, and other parts of the institution would be involved in implementing policy. Dr.
Barberena expressed that communication should go from the committee to the areas it touches.
Judy Young favors the proposed council as it provides a method for documenting history. Dr.
Barberena asked if the College Council membership felt that it was within the purview of College
Council to make the decision to establish an academic policy council and the members agreed that
it was so. In response to who will communicate these policies, it should be noted in policies that
impinge on Academic Senate’s professional duties should be vetted by the Academic Policy
Council but have to go to Senate. Jane Church proposed the use of a form that would include a
check-list that would direct it to Senate, College Council or another body when needed. Jim
Matthews recommended that the following statement should be included on the form and policy:
“For non academic professional matters or issues, it goes to College Council”. Dr. Marcia Corcoran
suggested that recommendations for academic matters be forwarded to Academic Senate, and
recommendations for all other matters
be forwarded to College Council.
A
recommendation to approve the
Academic Policy Council as a body in the
College governance structure was
made, seconded, and approved by
College Council at 1:40 p.m.
Naming of College Facilities- There
Chancellor about naming athletic
have been requests made to the
facilities and other facilities on campus. A
1
Office of the President (510) 723-6640  FAX (510) 723-7126  25555 Hesperian Boulevard, Hayward CA 94545
College Council
MINUTES OF FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7TH, 2008
committee has been formed to address these issues. Gary Carter and Heidi Finberg will be the
administrative representatives on this committee. Representatives from the faculty, staff and
students have been named already. The Chancellor will call the next meeting.
District Budget Study Group (DBSG)– Judy Young reported that DBSG has reconvened and will
meet in December. There are two chairs, and Ming Ho, Academic Senate President, will be on the
committee. The appropriate membership will be invited by the District to the DBSG meeting, and
membership and group charge is listed in Board policy.
Governance Structure–Board Policy #2015- Dr. Barberena encouraged the membership to place
a copy of the Council governance structure in their Council binders as a reminder of membership.
Dr. Barberena will contact the Faculty Association to ask them assign a representative to attend
College Council, and SEIU will need to have separate representatives. Jim Matthews and Ming Ho
will represent the Academic Senate. Justin Reyes, ASCC President, will name another student.
Rachel Ugale will call SEIU to get a representative. Marcia Corcoran will be the administrator staff
at large. Judy Young was recommended to be a budget representative.
Change of Division Name From Chabot College Arts and Humanities Division to Chabot
College School of the Arts- Gary Carter stated that the official name title will be changed to the
Chabot College School of the Arts. 100% of division staff and full-time faculty and many adjuncts
have supported this request and have signed a document that will be sent to Vice President
Groppetti and President Barberena supporting this change. This new name will help with marketing
the programs, and give credibility and stature to the programs thereby fostering their ability to
acquire additional funding. This move is mostly a marketing and branding effort and strategy that
will help when seeking targeted donations. Chad Mark Glen said the Arts & Humanities Division
was enthusiastically supportive. Gene Groppetti said the new name will benefit the college as a
whole. We need to think holistically about Chabot, and this name promotes a positive
organizational culture on campus. In 1989, Southwestern College eliminated “divisions” and started
utilizing “schools”. Using terms like the “Academy of Broadcasting Arts” would also work. Melinda
Matsuda felt it looks like the “Chabot College School of the Arts” is one entity and not the
department being one facet of Chabot. A recommendation was made to use “Chabot College’s
School of the Arts”. The name change was recommended and approved by College Council at 2:08
p.m.
Update on SLOAC- Rebecca Otto reported that the Spring 2008 Faculty/Staff Survey showed that
only 55% agreed or strongly agreed that: “I am familiar with the college-wide learning goals.”,
although the percentage should include a higher number like 90% and should include a campuswide campaign awareness. Rebecca wants to form an interdisciplinary group of faculty to develop
Program Level Outcomes.
Rebecca shared results from the Faculty Survey which shows that Chabot has moved forward in
writing SLOS, and our attitudes towards SLO are better. Gene Groppetti felt it was fine to tell faculty
that the Accrediting Body requires SLOs and it matters that we complete SLOs. Dr. Corcoran
reported that after completing their SLO writing, the Language Arts Division commented on how
well it was to write and complete them. Rebecca Otto was commended for her work in leading the
SLO process. A student representative recommended that SLOs be displayed in each classroom
so students can view it just in case an instructor has not completed an outcome. Rebecca’s goal is
to redesign the SLO website. It was
recommended she work with Webmaster
Abdullah Yahya for assistance with
upgrading it. Although faculty have
expressed concerns about the SLO
requirement, 63% of faculty have
completed at least one SLO, which
are now being put into eLumen. Rebecca
demonstrated the eLumen site (i.e.,
evaluation scorecard) which will be fully
implemented this Spring. Rebecca is
starting a pilot study and is seeking
faculty volunteers to identify the bugs
in eLumen.
2
Office of the President (510) 723-6640  FAX (510) 723-7126  25555 Hesperian Boulevard, Hayward CA 94545
College Council
MINUTES OF FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7TH, 2008
Some issues encountered in the SLO cycle include:
Courses that are no longer taught continue to be listed in Chabot’s Catalog and on the
website. This is happening in areas campus wide. Gene Groppetti charged the deans to identify
courses that are no longer being taught. Chabot needs to develop a way to improve the reporting
structure of classes that are canceled at the start of each semester which will help determine if
SLOs need to be written for them.
Curriculum is currently in transition. With the new course renumbering, new courses are now
listed on the website.
Some programs are taught entirely by adjunct faculty (i.e., photography, architecture). Adjunct
faculty will be given an opportunity for training in SLO writing and assessment. Adjuncts will be
compensated for their time. Rebecca wants to convene a paid training for adjunct faculty to assist
with writing SLOs. Marcia Corcoran recommended we offer three hours of training for adjuncts on
how to write at lease one SLO. Adjuncts could get paid at the “F” rate, or a stipend. Rebecca will
follow up with Gene Groppetti regarding identifying adjunct to participate and compensation, and to
wrap up the process by February.
Student Services. Melinda Matsuda stated that their SLOs are imbedded in their program review.
They have been written for most units in Student Services. Assessment will start in Spring. Council
will receive an updated report in December. The Spring Flex Day morning will be devoted to SLO
assessment, and SLOAC has started the planning process. Rebecca’s hope is that one day there
will no longer be a Student Learning Outcome and Assessment Cycle committee (SLOAC
Committee).
Presentations
Presentation on Program Review- Wayne Phillips, Chair of the Program Review Committee,
updated the Council on where Program Review is currently. Programs that are entering the review
in 2006 and in process include: Biology, Digital Media, Distance Education, Early Childhood
Development, Engineering, ESL, Geography, History, Learning Connection, Nursing, PACE,
Psychology, Puente, and WRAC. Programs entering the review process in 2007 and are in
process include: Foreign Languages, Humanities/Philosophy/Religious Studies, Mass
Communications-Broadcasting, Medical Assisting, Music, and Speech. Programs that will be
starting the review process in 2008 include: Auto Technology, Computer Applications Systems, Fire
Technology, Machine Tool Technology, Welding, Work Experience, Architecture, Art History,
Journalism-Spectator,
Photography, Theater Arts, Athletics, Nutrition, Physical Education,
Chemistry, English, Sign Language, Astronomy, Physics, Computer Science, Geology,
Mathematics, Administration of Justice, Anthropology, Economics, Political Science, Sociology,
ASPIRE, Daraja, and Psych/Counseling.
All programs starting this year have issues like: 1) several programs lack full-time faculty to
participate in review; 2) original plan for Program Review process included “boulders” as well as
“rocks”, but the model is being modified to make the process simpler and more efficient; 3) concern:
only two members from last year’s committee are active committee members this semester. Chad
Mark Glen recommended that programs who started program review process last year should
receive a note from the Program
Review Committee inviting each program
to submit their SLOs for their program
review packet.
In 2005, there were six programs in
programs in Program Review. The
one year to get that first group through
Program Review. This year, there are 32
first cohort was finished and was delayed
the program review process.
3
Office of the President (510) 723-6640  FAX (510) 723-7126  25555 Hesperian Boulevard, Hayward CA 94545
College Council
MINUTES OF FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7TH, 2008
There is information on the Program Review website about each program undergoing the process
and available by viewing www.chabotcollege.edu/programreview.
President Barberena stated that “Making it visible” needs to happen with the program review
documents and this could happen if they are placed on the College’s website.” She is also
concerned about how long the Program Review process takes and how it affects improving
institutional effectiveness. She is worried that this will be a serious concern for the Accreditation
Visiting Team to come in October 2009 if we are not as farther along in the Program Review
process. Wayne agreed to contact these programs immediately. President Barberena said: “This is
a great, vibrant institution with great teaching, but I am concerned the evidence for this is not
coming through in program review. She asked if administrative support would help to the
committee members complete their program reviews? Would Deans help facilitate the process,
particularly with those programs going through? This may lighten up the load of the small
committee.” Rebecca Otto felt faculty need more flex time together.
Gene Groppetti commended Wayne Phillips for his work, and credited the small committee who is
carrying out the work load, especially with all the other regular responsibilities that each committee
member carries. Gene urged administration to support the committee more effectively and keep
things moving through the process. Program Review has taken a lot on. With administrative
support some of the responsibility and tasks will be performed faster. Chad felt that in the process
there are some things (i.e., secretarial tasks) that need to be done, for example, faculty may not
have time for clerical tasks. Staff assigned would help expedite the process. President Barberena
agreed with Gene Groppeti and asked that the cognizant administrators support program review.
President Barberena felt Chabot needs to measure program effectiveness and aligning program
resources within its programs as part of the College’s main goals, duties, and functions. Marcia
Corcoran recommended that better communication of meetings be made so more staff can be
involved in the process. She encouraged Wayne to Email the deans if a particular program is
meeting so that they can attend. If there is a leadership that is shared, this will help complete the
program review process sooner.
It was agreed that the advancement of the Program Review process is more urgent that completing
SLOs, although we might find that we are more ahead in the SLO process. President Barberena
said we are required to complete program review and we must do this as a shared responsibility
and move forward with diligence. Gene felt utilizing past data on student surveys may decrease the
time line and move us further along.
Streamlining the program review process was discussed, and a consensus on how the process
should go was reached.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:53 p.m.
4
Office of the President (510) 723-6640  FAX (510) 723-7126  25555 Hesperian Boulevard, Hayward CA 94545