REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Academic Senate
October 1, 2010, 1 p.m.
•
• Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, AD 201 (Board Room)
Del Norte: 883 West Washington Boulevard, Crescent City, Room E 3
• Mendocino Coast: 1211 Del Mar Drive, Ft. Bragg, Room 106 B
Members Present: David Holper, Mark Winter, Michael Bailey, Bob Brown, Kady Dunleavy,
Jennifer Gardner, Dave Gonsalves, Utpal Goswami, Allen Keppner, Philip
Mancus, Kerry Mayer, Todd Olsen, Ruth Rhodes, Mike Richards, Justine Shaw.
Members Absent: Rebecca Ashbach, Jeff Hogue, Pat Padilla, Chris Romero, Gary Sokolow.
1. Call to Order: Copresident David Holper called the meeting to order at 1:07.
2. Introductions and Public Comments: Copresident David Holper welcomed all members and
guests, and he called for public comments; no public comments were offered.
3. Approve the September 17, 2010 Meeting Minutes: On motion by Kerry Mayer, seconded by
Mike Richards, the minutes were approved as written.
4. Action Items
4.1
September 24 Curriculum Committee Recommendations: Chair Peter Blakemore
presented the recommendations, and he answered questions. On motion by Allen Keppner,
seconded by Michael Bailey, the recommendations were unanimously approved by the
following roll call vote: Bailey – y, Brown – y, Gardner – y, Gonsalves – y, Keppner – y,
Mancus – y, Mayer – y, Olsen – y, Rhodes – y, Richards – y, Shaw – y.
4.2 Program Review Committee Appointment: Copresident Winter presented the
recommended appointment. On motion by Allen Keppner, seconded by Kerry Mayer, the
recommendation was unanimously approved by the following roll call vote: Bailey – y,
Brown – y, Gardner – y, Gonsalves – y, Keppner – y, Mancus – y, Mayer – y, Olsen – y,
Rhodes – y, Richards – y, Shaw – y.
5. Discussion Items
5.1
Accreditation Follow-Up Report: Vice President Utpal Goswami presented the revised
draft, and he requested that, in addition to comments made at today’s meeting, feedback be
forwarded to him in writing, preferably in time for him to consider the suggestions prior to
revising the draft over the weekend. During discussion, Senate suggestions and feedback
on the Follow-Up Report draft included the following: (1) Adjust the tone so it is more
equitable rather than referring to administrative activities as fact but faculty activities as
perceptions or beliefs; (2) Address the lack of transparency and communication at the
college and that employees feel disenfranchised; (3) Revise misleading statements so the
report is honest and accurate; (4) Replace the word “adjunct” faculty with “associate”
faculty, which is the term the college uses; (5) Include a section that addresses the lack of
Academic Senate Minutes
October 1, 2010
Page 2
5.2
5.3
feedback loops where information is communicated back to the group that made the
recommendation or decision; (6) Provide evidence for anything that is stated as fact; and
(7) Address the lack of collaboration in decision-making processes. Utpal reported that he
will revise the report over the weekend, and he plans to post a final version and a PDF
evidence document on the website on Tuesday, October 5. The Board will review the
report at its October 9 meeting, and unless they mandate substantial revisions, the report
will be sent to the ACCJC on October 11.
Enrollment Management: Enrollment Management Committee (EMC) member Allen
Keppner presented the memo to the Senate written by EMC member Bruce Wagner in
which Bruce addresses the workings of the EMC during the past year and identifies some
of the committee’s recommendations. Allen reported that the EMC addressed a number of
issues, including: (1) TLU allocations, (2) enrollment targets, (3) the transfer of sections
from Eureka campus to other sites, (4) access and efficiency and how they sometimes
conflict, and (5) wait list issues. Senators commented that it appears from the memo that
many of the EMC recommendations were not incorporated into the decision-making
process, but no information was communicated back to the EMC regarding how their
recommendations were considered or why they were not followed. Allen reported that the
EMC discussed whether their work had value, and they are attempting to address ways to
improve the communication feedback from the administration. Regarding TLU allocations
and the protection of allocations along the 101 corridor sites, Allen reported that a survey is
being drafted that will go out to all students taking classes at corridor sites to gather data on
why they chose to take a section at a particular location, how satisfied they are with the
location, and generally how well having multiple sites is working for them. Senators
addressed a number of problematic issues with the wait list process used this semester, and
it was suggested that faculty be asked to provide feedback on what worked for them, what
didn’t, and ideas for improving the process. The Senate agreed that the process needs to be
clarified and clearly communicated to faculty, students and staff.
Spring 2011 TLU Allocation: Vice President Snow-Flamer presented the background and
the budget considerations involved in the Spring 2011 TLU allocation process, and he
reported that the Enrollment Management Committee has submitted a supplemental budget
request to the Budget Planning Committee, which if funded, will cover the projected
overload in the spring. In response to questions regarding whether the TLU cuts were
across the board and whether they had changed from what was projected in July, Keith
replied that he asked the deans to adjust the schedule in their areas and that new
information regarding budget considerations required adjustments from what was
announced in July. Senators questioned why the allocations were coming from Student
Services and not from the Vice President of Instruction, and they also questioned the claim
that efficiency and access are increased by offering more sections at the Eureka Downtown,
Arcata, and McKinleyville sites while the offerings are being reduced in Eureka.
Additional concerns included: (1) allocation decisions do not appear to be data-informed,
(2) the cutbacks are unequal across disciplines and divisions, (3) cutbacks make it difficult
for students to plan their schedules and complete programs or earn degrees, and (4) the
increases in offerings followed by cutbacks make it difficult to retain qualified and
experienced associate faculty that many programs rely on.
Academic Senate Minutes
October 1, 2010
Page 3
6. Reports
6.1 Accreditation Update: Utpal Goswami reported that at their last meeting the Self Study
Steering Committee worked on identifying the list of items needed for the upcoming mock
study, and the Standard Committees are in the process of gathering the data they need. It
was decided that a thorough mock self study will be conducted on the Human Resources
portion of Standard III, and areas of other Standards may also be a focus. Prior to when the
mock self study is conducted in December, individual Standards Committees will identify
areas they feel need more work and will have the mock study team review those areas.
Utpal agreed to write a weekly newsletter to keep the college community informed on Self
Study activities.
6.2 ASCR Update: In Rebecca Ashbach’s absence, no ASCR report was presented.
6.3 September 20 College Council Update: Copresident Holper’s report included the following
items: (1) Dave and Mark are working with Utpal on a revision of the faculty prioritization
process that will be forwarded to College Council and then to the Senate during the review
period; (2) College Council will vote on the BP and AP sunset recommendations that came
before the Senate on September 17, and Dave reported that he raised the same questions at
College Council that were raised during the Senate review; and (3) An ad hoc committee
has been formed to draft a mission statement for the college. Michael Bailey offered to
participate on the ad hoc committee if there were no objections to including an associate
faculty member.
7. Announcements and Open Forum: No announcements or open forum items were forwarded.
7.1 October 11-12 Technical Assistance with Scott Lay and Jane Patton: Copresident Holper
announced that Scott Lay and Jane Patton are scheduled to return for a follow-up Technical
Assistance visit on October 11-13. The team will meet with constituent groups to discuss
the recommendations made in the 2009 Technical Assistance Report and to address ways to
move forward. Dave asked senators to read the Report and to come to the faculty listening
session prepared to provide feedback on how the college is meeting the recommendations.
The Technical Assistance agenda will be distributed soon, and Dave asked senators to
forward questions regarding the visit to him and to Mark.
7.2 September 2010 Senate Rostrum: As a good source of relevant information, Copresident
Holper encouraged senators to read the articles in the Rostrum.
8. Adjournment: On motion by Allen Keppner, seconded by Kerry Mayer, the meeting was
adjourned at 3:12.
Respectfully submitted by Sally Frazier, Administrative Secretary to the Academic Senate.
Next Meeting:
October 15, 2010