Constituent Feedback
AP 4025
From: Joanna Tindle
From: Michelle Haggerty
This is the feedback from the curriculum committee meeting on 12/11/15 on AP 4025:
Under area D3, Analytical thinking:
Students may take a non math class, for instance Philosophy to fulfill this area, however, Title 5
requires that a Math class still be taken, that the Philosophy class do not count at a math
class. A note here regarding this would be helpful.
Under area E Multicultural Understanding the following edit was recommended:
After the first sentence include the information from the last sentence to read:
“This course must also incorporate an underlying theme or themes that address at least one of
the following:
1.
2.
3.
Constituent Feedback
AP 4025
Courses that meet the Area E requirement may be from any discipline and must satisfy one of
the GE areas A-D.
The committee thought it was important to emphasize that the requirements in the first sentence and in
one of the three areas are required for a course that is in this area.
Constituent Feedback
AP 5055
From: Rianne Connor
I am concerned about AP5055. I believe that we are federally mandated to provide priority
enrollment to the top 5 listed in group 1. Trio is not part of that group and should not be given
priority enrollment.
Additionally,our SSSP task force would like line 4 struck out, regarding the students with above
100 units.
From: Sheila Hall
Rianne’s correct, Title 5 states that “districts administering a priority registration system for
enrollment should provide equal priority to all five groups of students: EOPS, DSPS, CalWORKS,
active duty military and veterans, and foster youth and former foster youth.”
To maintain compliance with the regulations, the proposal for TRIO should actually come as #2 in our
current AP 5055.
#4 should be deleted because it contradicts the beginning paragraph and is out of compliance
with the regulations.
From: Brady Reed
Thanks for clarifying the requirements of Title 5. So to summarize what I discussed with Sheila and she
seemed to agree, that TRIO students could still receive some priority after these other mandated groups
but before all other continuing students. So they would be listed in the AP as #2 and likely get a
registration date late in the priority week. TRIO students have the same at-risk characteristics as the
other groups (socioeconomically and educational disadvantaged) so it would be prudent for the college
to give them some priority to increase retention and graduation rates. I think it would send a message
that the college is aware and supportive of students who do not usually persist without additional
intervention. Our program is very diverse in age and ethnicity as well.
From: Tiffany Schmitcke
I’m concerned with the addition of TRIO to the #1 slot for priority registration. TRIO is not federally
mandated to be included in priority registration and I think we would not be setting a good precedence
if this is allowed. We could be opening the door to every other group on campus that simply wants to
have priority reg.
And we need #4 language completely deleted.
Constituent Feedback
AP 5055
From: Tom Cossey
I am a member of the Student Success and Support Task force which submitted the revision to AP 5055
in 2014. When we made this revision we were following the guidelines set forth by the Chancellors
Office. When I saw this was up for revision I assumed there was a mandate from the Chancellors Office
to add TRIO participants to the top tier priority group. I found out yesterday that wasn’t the case and
that this proposal came directly from Brady Reed, Director of the new TRIO program at the Eureka
Campus. I am against this revision as we worked hard to align our policy with the Chancellors Office
mandates. I have attached two documents that we used to revise AP5055 and feel we shouldn’t stray
from what has been mandated. If we add TRIO, what is stopping every other group from asking for this
top tier privilege? Students who qualify for the TRIO program will also qualify for EOPS and could gain
top tier enrollment if they so choose.
The SSSP Task Force does propose removing this paragraph from AP 5055:
4. Continuing students and returning students who have exceeded 100 units (not including units in
basic English, math or English as a Second Language)
The reason we are suggesting this is it contradicts the upper portion of the AP that states:
Priority Registration days and times for any semester will be assigned as follows for students who
have completed orientation, assessment, developed student education plans, are in good academic
standing and have completed fewer than 100 units:
This was an oversight on our part and we never took the time re-visit the issue.
The SSSP Task Force recommendation (from what I understand) was submitted to Johanna Helzer
and Pru Ratliff (representing managers) by Paul Chown with the support of myself, Sheila Hall,
Tiffany Schmitcke, and Rianne Conner. I wanted to make sure our classified representatives were
aware of the issue. I would, at the least, like to see this tabled while proper language can be
worked out.
Constituent Feedback
AP 5055
Constituent Feedback
AP 5500
From: Trish Blair
There really should be something in the AP that relates to students with disabilities. I have pasted
some examples below.
Santa Monica College - All students, including students with disabilities, have the responsibility to meet
the college Code of Conduct by adapting behavior to the educational environment. If disruptive
behaviors persistently occur or a student code of conduct is violated, the issue should not be defined as
a health issue. It should be defined as a disciplinary issue, and a referral to the college disciplinarian
should be made.
University of Texas, San Antonio - Disruptive and disorderly conduct or failure to comply with the
guidelines and expectations of the university’s Code of Student Conduct and SDS may result in
contacting The Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards or the police. The same general
expectations of behavior apply to all students, including those with disabilities.
Savannah State University - Students with disabling conditions are subject to the provisions of the
Savannah State University’s Code of Student Conduct. Any behavior that violates these policies is subject
to sanctions, up to and including dismissal from the University. The Americans with Disabilities Act does
not protect behaviors alleged to be a consequence of the disabling condition.
From: Cathy Cox
This is something I’m going to bring up in Student Development Leadership Group and with Mark Winter
as well – might as well mention it here.
AP 5500 is called “Standards of Student Conduct”, but what it really should be called in my opinion is
“Student Conduct and Discipline Procedures”. It’s commonly referred to around the campus as the
“Code of Student Conduct”, but that’s really not correct – and it is very, very hard for students and staff
to find where it actually says what the specific things are that we consider to violate acceptable
behavior.
It’s there, but even though I’ve been looking for it for a few months no one was able to actually point
me to it and I couldn’t find it until tonight. It’s section 8.1, under “Code of Conduct Violations and
Sanctions”. (Even a search of the CR website for “Student Code of Conduct” didn’t turn it up!)
I very very strongly recommend that AP 5500, section 8.0, be renamed “Student Code of Conduct”, and
re-worked slightly to provide a positive statement at the beginning of the expectations we hold for our
students (as well as making it findable if we search for that phrase!). I’ve attached the AP to this email
with my suggestions shown in “Track changes” on page 11.
This wouldn’t change the actual policy much, but it would give us something we can easily excerpt from
and refer to. Syllabi already refer to the “Code of Student Conduct”; this would allow people to
actually find it.
Constituent Feedback
AP 5500
The other thing that seems counter-intuitive with this procedure is that we go into great detail
describing the process to be followed in disciplining students before we ever mention what we might be
disciplining them for. It would seem to me that if we want to be able to easily have people find out
what we expect of them, the entirety of section 8 ought to come before we get into the process of
disciplining them for violations. Again, this isn’t a suggestion that would require changing the process or
even the language, but the procedure might be easier to make use of if the expectations and sanctions
(currently section 8) were moved to much earlier in the procedure – possibly placing them as section 3,
and then re-numbering everything following that to adjust. That’s less important than simply relabelling section 8.1, however, and it would entail more work so it may not be a good idea.
Constituent Feedback
BP 3050
From: Debbie Williams
The BP does not specifically state that the “written code” is the AP; I suppose that’s to be assumed, but
in this particular instance, the strength inherent in the phrase “written code” should be matched with
the specific place to find the code (even if it’s ‘only’ in the AP).
Constituent Feedback
BP/AP 3570
From: Burk McBride
We need an explanation of vapor cigs, are they allowed or not. They don’t want to smoke their vapor
around other smokers and get second hand smoke.. just some questions I have had from them.
From: Garry Patrick
The Smoking AP3570 is poorly written regarding residential space. I read this that it is in fact ok to
smoke in the dorm rooms, which is residential space.
Constituent Feedback
AP 7400
From: Debbie Williams
I like that they deleted the DMV thing; I realize that this was a powerful way to ensure that all are
compliant with CR policy, but I think the requirement could be used in instances where there have been
problems with a specific driver (they have more than one ‘incident’ while driving under the cover of CR
business, for instance), but not a blanket requirement for ALL drivers. This AP is still a work in progress,
seemingly; some of the procedures seem contradictory (e.g., if using the standardized reimbursement, it
says you don’t have to fill out the Expense Form, but on the Expense Form, there’s a box to ‘check’ if
you’ve requested the Standard rate, so are we supposed to use it or not?), but I am sure that the kinks
will be worked out as the procedures are learned.
Constituent Feedback
BP 3200
From: Michael Dennis
BP3200 - first paragraph to read
"The Chief Executive Officer shall ensure the District complies with the accreditation processes and
standards of the Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges and other agencies that
particular District programs seek special accreditation from."
BP3200 - second paragraph to read
"The CEO shall keep the Board of Trustees informed of the District’s status in meeting the standards of
the ACCJC and other agencies that particular District programs seek special accreditation with.”