Meeting of the
Academic Senate Executive Committee
Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, SS 201, Academic Senate Office
Crescent City: 883 W Washington Blvd, Room E-4
Monday, November 30, 2015 at 3 PM
Members Present: All members were present (Co-President Mark Renner by phone)
Guest Speakers: Susan Nordlof and Angela Stewart
1. Call to Order: Co-President Connie Wolfsen called the meeting to order at 2:58
2. Public Comment: No public, no comments.
3. Action Items
3.1 Approve November 13 Meeting Minutes: On a motion by Mike Dennis,
seconded by Lisa Sayles, the minutes were approved as written.
4. Discussion
To Have (or Not to Have) Full Senate Meeting on Jan. 15, 2016: This is a flex
day. There is a lot of work to do, but there are Division meetings and flex
activities that may interfere with this meeting. We could try to find out what
flex and Division meetings may be on the docket, then. The main discussion
for that possible Senate meeting would consist of Accreditation concerns,
plans, and datelines (including Angelina Hill in the conversation and
planning). Another important discussion would be regarding the revisions to
the Senate Constitution and Bylaws; a January meeting would allow Senators
to approve the revisions in good time.
Revision of Constitution & Bylaws: Some new additional language was a
specific effort to codify past practice.
Senate Agenda for December 4: Reviewed/revised.
Annual Plan Action Items: No time
Noncredit: Questions and/or Concerns: No time
BP/AP Updates: No time
Honors Program: Susan Nordlof & Angela Stewart were present to discuss
changes they would like to implement. It is at a turning point, or may be
considered at crisis point. They have discovered that advantages we have
offered for students are no longer valid: especially Transfer Alliance Program
(TAP) changes. An older Honors program was much more successful, with
lots of outreach to high schools. Budgeting problems required cuts that
created a less cohesive and unimpressive program. The UCs do not like our
present contract system, and are not accepting transfers for CR Honors
students. The Honors team is also currently trying to contact past Honors
students to see what they would suggest for program
procedures/awards/incentives. Current students do not want changes to be
implemented this year. Michelle Haggerty has been consulted (for
Curriculum concerns). Separate course outlines for Honors courses are
required. They need to decide whether to let the program languish or take
another direction. The community would like to continue the program but
we must offer more incentives for students. In order to make the program
transferable, the process for approving Honors courses (about 30?) would go
through the entire approval process (Curriculum and Chancellor’s office).
Smaller classes and revised outlines would require collaboration between
Faculty and Administration. We must build up a support system that works
to academically promote students while working together as instructors to
strengthen the procedures and codify them. There are approximately 15-20
students now, and making it grow is important. There are heavy Arts,
Languages, and English use now, and we need more Math and Science
interests. Starting at the high school level is an important way to give
students a better start. How to get more math and science classes? Math
instructors do not seem to be into it. It’s currently unpaid work to develop
courses. CR investment is critical as students will be more likely to get into
the program if we can promote it early. It’s an important incentive to be able
to provide Credit for transfer. Students are eager for the credential of being
an Honor student. They would like the Academic Senate to provide support
to the idea of the program being included in budgeting, processes (like
Education Master Plan), etc. One idea is to restore “Program” status in a
Program Review sense; the processes have included program review in past,
but not lately. SARTCO agreement is where some of the things that used to
work were written, but changes made recently have dropped some of the
working pieces. It’s not a club, and involves course work and faculty…
Another idea is to set up an ad-hoc task force to look into possibilities.
Program reviews are needed in order to be funded and show progress. See
how we could build up the program, have a trial period, use past students as
enrollment/advertising points. An ad-hoc committee seems to be a great
place to start a District conversation. As it now stands, the “program” could
now be accused of using false advertising (transfers not accepted). Can
Senate be instrumental in starting the ad-hoc and getting the seminar
program started? It’s a hybrid of Senate issues. Co-Presidents could have
discussion with CRFO about ways and means. The Program does need help –
perhaps AP 4021 Program Revitalization or Discontinuation Process could be
5. Future Agenda Items: No time.
6. Announcements/Open Forum: A discussion about time limits for guest speakers at
future meetings (Senate and Executive).
7. Adjournment: On a motion by Kady Dunleavy, seconded by Lisa Sayles, the
meeting was adjourned at 5:26 pm.
Public Notice—Nondiscrimination:
College of the Redwoods does not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, color or
disability in any of its programs or activities. College of the Redwoods is committed to providing reasonable accommodations
for persons with disabilities. Upon request this publication will be made available in alternate formats. Please contact Debbie
Williams, Academic Senate Support, 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, Eureka, CA 95501, (707) 476-4259, 9 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday,
Tuesday, Thursday & Friday.