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: The revisions in the Constitution largely
reflect verification of existing procedures that are not explicitly written
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, Dana Maher & 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have offered for students are no longer valid: especially Transfer Alliance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 is not a
satisfactory solution for instructors. 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
could happen; the problem is that Administration controls the system and its
unknown how to go about improving things. 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 huge 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 starving 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 give it “Program” status(if
not already considered a program); 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 utilized?
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.