COLLEGE COUNCIL
Wednesday, March 26th, 2014
MINUTES
President Sperling opened the meeting at 1:05 p.m.
MINUTES
A motion was made to approve the minutes from the February 26th, 2014 meeting, and the minutes were approved by
consensus.
REPORTS
Mission Statement- Susan reported that the new Mission Statement for Chabot was Board approved on March 18th,
2014 without any controversy and with enthusiasm. The mission statement defines our mission in direct and meaningful
ways. She thanked staff who worked on and moved this forward.
Review of Shared Governance- At last month’s meeting Council members discussed reviewing our shared governance
structure and processes, and refining areas needing to be tweaked. A meeting was scheduled when Gerald Shimada
passed, but the group has not yet met but will be meeting soon.
FTEF Goals- Recent developments occurred in the shared governance and negotiated process of determining our FTEF
goals and growth district wide. It is an element in the Faculty Association (FA) contract with the District that the District
Enrollment Management (DEMC) and College Enrollment Management (CEMC) determine recommendations to the
Chancellor (and at the college level to the president) about our FTEF targets. These are crucial decisions at community
colleges and the two committees make recommendations on these matters. There was a positive process that occurred
in mid-March in which FA reps to this committee and administrative reps met at the district level and went through
lengthy and data driven discussion initial disagreements about how much growth we could afford to go after and what
the apportionment of essential classes or courses at each college would be. Enrollments are leveling, during the
recession students were coming in larger numbers wanting to take classes. Many faculty took in 110% of what we are
funded for and certainly what they are paid to teach. This impacts classified professionals as they are processing more
students and providing more support for students. We are entering a period across the system where enrollments are
starting to not be so pressing and the original enrolment target that the WSH for FTEF target set by the Chancellor
initially was quite a bit higher at 540. After discussion, this was reduced to 520 and the growth we are proposing to
match and earn is 2.5% rather than an additional 1.52%. Vice Chancellor Jeff Kingston attended the special CEMC
meeting on March 25th. Dr. Matt Kritscher said Vice Chancellor Kingston ran the report three times and we hit our target
exactly each time (target was 362). Growth does provide for non-instructional and instructional expenditures.
There was a review of classes with low enrollment and adjustments made around that issue. Matt reported that Tom
DeWit said a decision was made to dedicate three FTEF to the first-year experience which is something new we are
attempting, and two FTEFs given to innovation. A concern is for students who are close to graduating but need English,
critical thinking, or college-level math class or some last class requirement, and we need a report of those students so
we can accomplish some completion courses in 2015 (would be using 2 FTEF to do this). Low enrollment classes were
reviewed.
DISCUSSION
New retirements/Prioritization- Chabot initially had nine retirements and went through our faculty prioritization
process and the President approved all with tweaks to a couple positions. All nine are prioritized positions, but now have
five additional retirements (one in math, four in counseling). The question is with policy. We have a list of priorities that
was arrived at through our prioritization process of 22 prioritized positions and the learning skills position is next up.
1
Math and counseling come up but not until #15. Susan reported we have retirements in counseling (or math), and a
generation of counselors who are leaving. Do we continue to go down the priority list, or do we look at it through fresh
eyes the overall need with reference to college goals and objectives (strategic goals and objectives) and move and
acknowledge to fund more counseling positions in this cycle.
The Faculty Prioritization Committee used to meet to review positions when late retirees came in which would be put on
the list. Under the current guidelines, the College President has the right to pick staff outside the process and to explain
why. Tram Vo-Kumamoto said we can provide an explanation and give credibility to the committee’s work, but felt
these things need to be adjusted for these reasons. One outcome of the prioritization process is we need to revisit our
process which is long and outdated. The process is an Academic Senate connected matter. This could be initiated by
Academic Senate through resolution with their desire to revise or change the prioritization process for the future. Kathy
Kelley felt the risk from a senate point-of-view is program discontinuance when that retired faculty member is not hired
with a full-time faculty member. When the committee did its analysis, it was with information available at that time,
Matt said. Going down the list would be a flaw in analyzing where to go as it is lacking that four counselors retired, and
the math instructor retired after the process. We have honored 100% the top-ten positions available when we started
the process, and consideration of the collective thought was put forward.
Matt said that in certain areas, such as the library and counseling, we should have a separate process. He felt we are
ranking the various instructional disciplines and that the collective community is seen as the new emerging discipline
instruction. This would address the pertinent data and student ratios per counselor (no more than one to 900). Kathy
felt we need to weave legislated changes into the process. With the student success action mandating certain things
that are not possible, we need a formula to follow.
Dr. Marcia Corcoran agreed with Matt, and felt it made sense that we would reconvene the committee. Tram felt it is an
anomaly five counselors are retiring at one time. Marcia said we are losing English instructors but because we are
multiples, we only get one. When three go out, we only get one which does not seem like a good policy. On the
multiples in reality, Marcia would want to see input and it is a challenge to hire too many people in one discipline at one
time. The question is do we go from narrowing the counseling positions or do we keep them as generalists, or hire form
the same pool, or create different types of counselors. We hire from the same pool and it is the same committee hiring
from the same pool for multiple positions which is not easy, Marcia said. Susan felt we need to strengthen and refine
this process. We are going to use the process, meaning a Board Approved process now, and let’s refer this important set
of considerations to Academic Senate and the Office of Instruction for proposals on a better policy. There are crucial
things will never happen if we continue to do it the way we do. For instance, there is no way to restore the study of
earth sciences to our curriculum with the current process. Does that mean the college does not need to build a position
in geology? No, we do need to. Where does that get taken care of? Susan hopes Academic Senate will look at those
issues under Kathy’s leadership in consultation with academic administration. Tram said another concern in the
discussion is the program mix is critical to the process. Without a vision and understanding in what we want to offer our
students and meeting community needs, the question becomes the free-for all as there is no over-arching framework
for looking at faculty positions. The future work being tasked to the Senate is a conversation about program mix.
Programs versus services become critical in the process. Having a new educational master plan would not need a faculty
prioritization process.
The second item to be thrown into the mix is we are pretty well balanced with our FON and 50% rule, hypothetically but
thin on classified professional support for what we are trying to do. If we are doing integrated planning and we use
growth to fund that, we can deliver services that support instruction effectively which we don’t do now. A classic
example is a webmaster – why wouldn’t we use some of this growth to fund for that. This is not a faculty position but
supports faculty and everything we do. Restoring resources for our student was what the recent resolution Senate made
and approved by the FA president and the president at the other college, Kathy said, but is not a part of the
consideration.
The 50% law is a district number and not a college number, Jim said. You have to use 51% of our money on instruction.
We will receive a report from school services this July looking at our district office funding, functionality, and issues
2
concerning the District Office. Matt wants to recommend we replace the four counselor positions given the existing
resources available for doing so. Kathy said one of the things not discussed whenever we have a large group being
replaced for retirees is that the total cost will be significantly lower than the group that retires. It would be nice if the
calculation was not based on the number of hires, but the amount of money being spent and available to hire new staff.
The new hires will cost 20 or 30% less and when you add those together with the 14 retirees, and this comes to several
new positions we can hire. Connie said there are other variables we have to use to increase the budget like step
increases, benefits, which may change that 20 or 30% less amount to a smaller amount.
Dave Fouquet has said both colleges have shrunk in terms of funding but the district stays the same. Kathy felt there
should be a way to harness that fact and the district to take this share of cuts. The battlefield to be changed is the 50%
law. Jim felt we should suggest that DBSG ask questions about how they calculate the 50% law. Matt has made a
recommendation having to do with replacing the counseling in this area: There are 14 full-time faculty counseling and
six in special programs for a total of 20, six out of the 20 are retiring in two months, one from DSPS and a position is
posted, and the other two that were prioritized through the Faculty Prioritization Committee was general counselor #1,
and general counselor #2 with emphasis on transfer, and a counselor for athletics that was ranked in the top nine and
will be posted soon. Athletics, DSPS, and general transfer counseling positions: four out of the six were posted. General
counselor #2 satisfied a pending retirement which came in. We repurposed a general counseling position for athletics as
it never existed before. Connie asked if we could or should replace one of the regular counselor positions with that
counselor position. Matt felt this has complexities. This is totally transparent and there was a funding line sitting in
counseling for a vacancy for a non-retention position. It has been a funded vacancy. A thought was to use that funded
vacancy to fulfill the counselor for athletics. Jim recommends we follow Matt’s intent for the positions he requested
because this follows the faculty prioritization process in its basic intention to add to counseling. The part about revising
the faculty prioritization process will be going to Senate for review. Marcia said we talked about hiring a faculty position
for learning skills or learning assessment as these positions are in the gray zone. It could be our tutoring person that is a
part of that. Any one with F hours should be in that part as well, Jim said. Kathy felt DBSG needs to be a part of the
conversation.
ACTION
Charge of College Council- Susan proposed that the fundamental role of College Council should be making
recommendations on policy and practices that best align with Chabot’s Strategic Goals and Objectives. Kathy asked if the
senates could review, weigh-in, and vote on this. Susan asked if the groups would take the wording back to their
respective groups for review, bring back feedback, so that we can reach consensus about whether this seems right.
Susan will include this on the next College Council agenda for review.
Recommendation regarding faculty prioritization- Susan asked for a recommendation on the issue of replacement of
retiring counselors based on SSSP mandates and College Goals and Objectives. Marcia expressed a reservation given two
forthcoming English retirements and a math instructor retirement. College Council was in consensus in recommending
the replacement of the retired counselors in order to honor college needs and the intention of the Faculty prioritization
Committee in response to data presented.
ADJOURNMENT
Susan closed the meeting at 3:12 p.m.
3