District Academic Senate Executive Meeting
September 22, 2011
1:30-3:30 pm
District Office
Attendance: Don Gauthier, Kathleen Bimber, Angela Echeverri, Alex
Immerblum, Lourdes Brent, Tom Rosdahl, Susan McMurray, John Freitas,
Adrienne Foster, Alfred Reed, Josh Miller
Guests: Deborah Harrington (Dean for Student Success), Yasmine Delahoussaye
(Vice Chancellor of Institutional Effectiveness)
1. Call to Order and Approval of Agenda: Meeting was called to order by DAS Vice President
Gauthier at 1:38 pm. Agenda was approved (Foster/Miller MSU). Three items were added to the
agenda: 12 (Faculty Evaluation), 17 (CFM Contract), and 18 (DAS Spring Calendar).
2. Approval of Minutes DAS Executive Meetings of 8/11/11: Minutes for 8/11/11 meeting were
approved with a few corrections (Gauthier/Brent MSU).
3. Public Speakers: None
4. Summit Preparation: Gauthier reported that they have been working hard for the last few days to
prepare for the LACCD DAS Summit. Harrington stated that we want to examine how we can
change what we already do to better serve students. Southwest faculty and administrators will
give a presentation on their first year experience with Achieving the Dream (AtD). The RP group is
doing workshops on SLOs and program review and there will be a session on accreditation. We
need to think about how SLOs and AtD align with each other. Gauthier reported that we will also
discuss exit points (why students leave) and how to address them. One of the breakouts in the
morning by Densafilice Densa will require that colleges bring their AtD work plans. Harrington and
Delahoussaye have requested that the colleges submit their work plans to them. There is a good
effective practices roundtable and a presentation on open education resources by 20 Million
Minds. Chancellor La Vista has hired grant writers to obtain money for implementation of
interventions in years two and three of AtD; this would be a district pot of money. Frank Baxter,
who has opened 20 charter schools in LAUSD, has expressed interest in contributing to AtD, but it
is too early to know what sort of implementation practices we will need money for. Delahoussaye
reported that SSI would form a task force that will work on policies and practices. She added that
we are getting ready to implement a new student Information System (SIS), and will need to clean
up our data before we transfer it to the new system. MIS data must be reconciled with the LACCD
data. The state uses top codes, but the DEC system does not match other codes. The AtD data
had to be validated and shared with the researchers and others on campus. Miller asked for an
example of “dirty” data. Delahoussaye replied that the number of DSPS contacts put into the DEC
do not get reported accurately. The DEC system is from 1982. Bimber added that this is not only a
DEC problem, but also an input problem. If the campus office does not know the correct top
codes, information gets put in the comment section and is not uploaded into DEC. Delahoussaye
reported she had to go to the Academic Affairs Office at Valley to verify the degrees and
1
certificates for commencement because the data being inputted manually was wrong. She added
she wants to have standardized operating procedures so we can have confidence in our reports.
5. Student Success Task Force: Delahoussaye distributed a handout titled “2nd Draft
Recommendations CCC Task Force on Student Success”. She reported that she served on
the statewide taskforce, which recently finished its work. The taskforce recommendations will be
used to develop the strategic plan for the state. She added that freshman English and math need
to be defined and we have been invited to the discussion. Senate Bill 1143 will go to the
legislature as a package in March 2012. She discussed the following items:
Chapter 1: Increase College and Career Readiness
1.1. Collaborate with K-12 to develop common core standards for college and career
readiness.
Chapter 2: Strengthen Support for Entering Students
2.1. Develop and implement common centralized diagnostic assessments: If approved,
colleges will not be able to choose their common assessment instrument (e.g.: Accuplacer, etc.).
We don’t know how soon this will happen. Cut scores do not have to be uniform. Math, Reading
and English/ESL are the areas that will be assessed.
2.2. Require students to participate in diagnostic assessment, orientation and the
development of an educational plan. Will change Title 5 to require that all California community
college students will have to participate in diagnostic assessment, orientation, and the
development of an education plan. There will be mandatory student success courses for those
who are not college ready; students will lose enrollment priority by their third term if they do not
participate.
Chapter 3: Incentivize Successful Student Behaviors
3.1. Adopt systemwide enrollment priorities reflecting core mission of community colleges:
The California Education Code identifies three core missions of community colleges: career
technical education (CTE), basic skills and transfer.
3.2. Require students receiving Board of Governors fee waivers to meet various conditions
and requirements. Delahoussaye reported that students must identify a degree, certificate,
transfer or career advancement goal, and meet certain academic standards (e.g.: maintain a GPA
of 2.0). It will also limit the Board of Governor’s (BOG) fee waiver to 110 units. She added that this
proposal needs to be vetted and consulted with the Senate.
3.3. Provide students opportunity to consider attending full time. Delahoussaye stated that
72% of our students are part time students.
3.4. Require students to begin addressing Basic Skills deficiencies in their first year. If
students fail to comply, they would lose enrollment priority.
Chapter 4: Align Course Offering to Meet Student Needs
2
4.1. Focus course offerings and schedules on needs of students. This is under the purview of
enrollment management. Use technology to put students on a clear academic path.
Chapter 5: Improve the Education of Basic Skills Students
5.1 Restrict credit funding for basic skills coursework to two levels below collegiate level.
This item was narrowly defeated (9 to 4) and has been removed from the list of recommendations
for now, but is likely to come back in the future. Vice Chancellor Maury Pearl estimates that the
LACCD would lose $7.1 to $12 million dollars in funding if this were approved. These funds would
then go to another district. The district would have to put lower level basic skills courses under
noncredit, adult education, and community service classes. Some people on the task force
justified this stating “The LACCD does not do anything for those students anyway”. Harrington
said this is an issue of equity and there will be a firestorm in the state because urban districts like
Oakland, LACCD, San Francisco, San Diego, Compton, and others would be disproportionately
impacted. Bimber said that some people have a negative perception of the LACCD. Delahoussaye
said she argued with Chancellor Jack Scott over this recommendation.
Chapter 6: Revitalize and Re-Envision Professional Development
6.1. Create a continuum of mandatory professional development opportunities. Immerblum
asked about the recommendation for mandatory professional development. Delahoussaye replied
it stems from the large number of adjunct instructors teaching basic skills courses.
6.2 Direct professional development resources toward improving basic skills instruction
and support services. The state spends $150 million/year on FLEX day activities and they want
to make sure it focuses on basic skills.
Chapter 7: Enable Efficient Statewide Leadership & Increase Coordination Among Colleges
Chapter 8: Align resources with Student Success Recommendations
8.1 Establish a new Student Success Fund: There will be a pot of money called Student
Success Initiative (SSI), which will replace the Basic Skills Initiative (BSI). The legislature thinks
that the Basic Skills money was wasted, so they want to sweep it into another fund. They want to
see outcomes data; colleges that have good outcomes data will get money. Delahoussaye
suggested giving the funds to the district so it could decide how to allocate them. The criteria that
will be used by the state to give out the SSI funds are still unknown. She added that since we get
13% of the EOPS funds statewide, we could hope for an equivalent percentage of Student
Success money.
8.2 Consolidate select categorical programs: Delahoussaye reported that she and others
successfully fought to remove EOPS from the flexible categorical funds. Foster stated these are
scary recommendations by the CCC Task Force on Student Success and asked whether the state
senate (ASCCC) has been consulted on this. McMurray said others should have been included in
the discussion.
3
8.3. Promote flexibility and innovation in basic skills through alternative funding
mechanism: Gauthier stated we are still teaching students as in K-12 and that does not work
anymore.
8.4. Do not implement outcome-based based funding. There was a split vote on this issue;
Nancy Shulock was pushing for outcome-based funding. However, it has not been successful in
other states such as Florida and Washington. It was also taken out because of a risk of “creaming”
students, output variations, and funding volatility in the state. Immerblum stated that performance
based funding would pressure faculty to dumb down their courses.
Bimber stated that we will discuss common course numbering during consultation. Another issue
is assessment portability; we need to come to an understanding within the LACCD so that if a
student assesses at one college their scores are portable to another college in the district.
Delahoussaye added she gets a lot of student complaints about having to reassess at different
campuses.
Delahoussaye explained that there is a CCCCO website where faculty can lodge their complaints
and concerns about the SS Task Force recommendations. Bimber expressed that she had no faith
in the CCCCO input process, citing the history on the Transfer Model Curriculum (TMC) issue.
Delahoussaye reported that there are students that have signed up for up to 50 units/semester in
the LACCD. She has directed Information technology (IT) to stop the practice of allowing students
to sign up for more than 18 units. Brent said students have to petition Admissions and Records to
take more than 18 units at any one college. A counselor is supposed to meet with a student and
approve petitions on a case-by-case basis. Delahoussaye ended the discussion by reiterating that
the threat of reducing funding for the LACCD is real.
6. Budget Update: Gauthier said there is no news on the budget. The DBC Executive passed a
resolution about not cutting college budgets further if there are mid-year cuts.
7. SB1440 Update: Bimber reported there is talk about the California Community Colleges
Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO) not accepting the regional degrees. She stated we were warned that
regional degrees would have less priority than TMC, but we were never told they would not count.
She added it is amazing the ASCCC is not telling us this. Bimber is going to tomorrow’s regional
curriculum meeting to confront our ASCCC leaders because we need clarity on this issue.
Elizabeth Atondo (Pierce) has also voiced her complaints. Immerblum said this is a very critical
issue and asked to reschedule the next DAS Executive meeting for October 13th so that it is before
the Area C meeting.
8. Districtwide Enrollment/Priority Enrollment: Tabled.
9. Senate Reassigned Time/Faculty Coordinator Assignments: Gauthier reported that he has
not received much feedback from DAS members on his draft guidelines for senate reassigned
time. McMurray and Immerblum agreed reassigned time for Senate Presidents should be 1.0 and
on D basis. The ASCCC advocates 2.0 for all senate officers (President 1.0, curriculum chair 0.6,
secretary 0.2, and treasurer 0.2). Reed reported that as senate president at Southwest he only
gets 0.4 reassigned time now. Freitas suggested that maybe the guidelines should specify
individual officers. Rosdahl said the Pierce Senate Executive Committee is large and includes
4
SLO and professional development people. Brent said according to Article 32, section 4, the AFT
negotiates reassigned time for committee chairs. Gauthier replied that these individuals are part of
the Senate Executive, not committee chairs. Furthermore, SLOs are under the senate’s purview.
Reed asked for clarification of coordinator versus committee chair positions. He added that
President Daniels did not consult him on the selection of an AtD coordinator at Southwest. Bimber
advised Reed to hand his president a 10+1 card. McMurray said former Senate President June B.
Smith would argue that all faculty appointments have to be approved by the Senate. Freitas
reported a similar lack of consultation on SLO and Student Success coordinator positions is
occurring at City. Miller stated he favored a minimum of 2.0 for the Senate officers plus 0.6 for
curriculum. Bimber replied we need to justify the other officer positions we want 1.0 funding for.
Brent asked whether the current Board Rule needs to be changed and inquired about the timeline.
Gauthier replied it should be done as soon as possible. Bimber added that if you get a verbal
approval from the chancellor, it has to go to the President’s Council, which can take a few months.
Section 53203 Part F of California’s Education Code says the senate needs to appoint SLO and
SS coordinators. We have a Board Rule that mimics the Education Code and we need to tighten
up the language of Article 18. Any appointments to campus wide committees need to be consulted
with the Academic Senate. Echeverri suggested we should specify the other officers and positions
into the remaining 1.0 after allocating 1.0 to the Senate President (1.0) and 0.6 to the Curriculum
Chair. Rosdahl said the formula could be based on the size of the college. Bimber said that the
SLO coordinator is part of curriculum and it should not be separated from the other positions.
Gauthier summarized by stating that 2.0 for all senate officers plus 0.6 for curriculum chairs is the
current proposal.
10. Administrator Hiring Completion: Tabled.
11. Ed Code/Article 33 Dispute: Contract negotiations have been completed, but they are still
working on the benefits section. It looks as though we may need a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) about Article 33 before it goes to the Board. Goulet did agree that in its current form the
article is in violation of California Education Code.
12. Contract Negotiations/Distance Education: The AFT wants more membership on hiring
prioritization committees. The administration did not want it, but the AFT fought for it. Gauthier
said we might have to have two separate committees dealing with distance education. This is a
full-blown assault on the senate territory.
13. Faculty Evaluation: Immerblum and Brent have no report.
14. Pierce Bookstore Resolution: Rosdahl distributed a handout with two motions drafted by the
Academic Senate Textbook Task Force at Pierce. He said Board policy prices the college
bookstores out of the competition because of a required 18% mark-up. The most recent motion
drafted on May 23, 2011 states the following:
Therefore be it resolved that the Pierce Academic Senate recommends to the District Academic
Senate and the Board of Trustee of the LACCD that,
(1) the college bookstores within the District reexamine the current textbook pricing formula to
allow greater flexibility to become more price sensitive for our students, and that
5
(2) the college bookstores within the District be allowed to be more competitive within the market
as a greater service to our students;
Be it further resolved that Pierce College shall actively continue to pursue ways to lower the costs
of textbooks to our students.
He wants to bring the motion to the DAS and Board. He argued that the business model needs to
change or our bookstores will go broke. McMurray reported that the Harbor bookstore had to cut
their expenditures by 50%; this impacted students who were not able to get their books. Gauthier
added that we need to reevaluate the amount of space and staffing dedicated to our bookstores.
McMurray stated there is a website (www.tornado.com) that lists college books. Miller mentioned
that Amazon sells instructor test banks on its website.
15. Waiting Lists: Foster said since waiting lists were eliminated a few years ago, it is important for
the DAS to develop guidelines on how to add students to classes. Bimber said there are
matriculation guidelines; she will research them and send them out. Faculty can use a lottery
system or first come, first serve, but the process cannot be arbitrary.
16. Review of Smart Classrooms: Immerblum said the task force put together wonderful guidelines
for smart classrooms with a checklist for special needs. It is a very good start, but a little too late.
The draft guidelines will go to the Board for adoption in October. McMurray said that Harbor is
having trouble replacing projector bulbs, which cost $400 each. Bimber asked whether the task
force discussed acoustics. Gauthier replied they discussed sound (overhead speaker systems),
lighting, projection systems, and location in the classroom. Freitas inquired about software
upgrades. Immerblum replied that the guidelines deal with initial planning of a building. Gauthier
reported that they came up with guidelines for different classrooms (flexible versus fixed seating).
McMurray said Harbor has classrooms with fixed seating and no center rows for rapid evacuation;
some of the seating is not compliant under ADA. Immerblum said everybody should get a copy of
the plan (50-60 pages) and especially get a copy of the checklist. Once approved, the standards
will go into effect by October or shortly thereafter. The Facilities Planning Committees need to look
at the guidelines right now and revisit the technology specifications. As long as classrooms have
not been built, the guidelines should be followed.
17. Faculty Hiring Recruiting Policy: Immerblum reported that there was a situation at East in which
a faculty member in architecture resigned soon after being hired, and the president went back and
hired from the remaining finalists. We need to develop a policy and agreement on how to deal with
this type of situation. Bimber replied that the Human Resources guide spells out what to do when
a probationary instructor resigns before the end of the first year. McMurray said they hired a new
retention coordinator and went to the number two person on the list. Someone contacted Carlos
Covarrubias, who said the minimum qualifications were OK, but apparently they were not. Bimber
said candidates should not be sent forward if they do not meet the minimum qualifications for the
position. The dean and vice president must remind the committee to verify minimum qualifications.
Gauthier replied that Pierce has someone who reviews all the files. Immerblum stated that there is
an issue of candidates not being trained in pedagogy and the state needs to support faculty
training. McMurray added that College of the Canyons has a first year faculty training program.
6
Immerblum argued for a statewide initiative and stated we will discuss at the upcoming Area C
meeting.
Brent/Freitas MSP: Motion to extend 10 minutes.
18. Perkins: Brent said there are issues with how Perkins/VTEA funds are being allocated on the
campuses. The workforce deans as well as senate presidents need to be notified and on the
distribution list about allocation and timelines.
19. Viability Review/Discontinuance: President Moore at City wants to start a task force to
discontinue viable programs in January. Bimber stated presidents cannot do this without a viability
study. If faculty positions are to be eliminated for budgetary reasons, the contract states the least
senior faculty are cut first. They need to go to the AFT and start lay-offs. Bimber will send out
Board Rules and state regulations. Brent added you don’t close the whole program when there is
a reduction in force. Bimber stated colleges can suspend a program for three years, but not
discontinue it. Colleges have to bring discontinuation proposals to the state.
20. CPM Firm Performance Evaluations and Other Bond Issues: Campus Project Manager (CPM)
firms on each campus are evaluated each year; they are tying this to contract evaluations. Issues
that need to be considered include whether they are completing the timeline, closing out projects,
etc. There needs to be shared governance participation and faculty need to be vocal if there are
problems. No one on the DAS Executive (except for Gauthier) has evaluated a CPM firm. The
Office of the Inspector General recently completed two investigations on alleged coercion in
scoring to select certain contractor firms at West and Mission. The firm that benefited from the
rescoring was FTR in both cases. Gauthier stated faculty at Valley were told not to make waves
with FTR. The South Gym renovation at City was approved. Immerblum said East were very
worried that the city of South Gate was trying to squeeze more money out of the Firestone Center,
which is right along the Alameda corridor resulting in traffic impacts.
21. Other: Foster asked if there were any revisions by the DCC on noticed motions for 12 units
residency and 6 units in major. Bimber said there were and that she would send out updated
material on this.
22. Adjourn: Meeting adjourned at 3:50 pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by DAS Secretary Angela Echeverri
7