REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Academic Senate
November 18, 2011, 1 p.m.
• Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, AD 201 (Board Room)
• Del Norte: 883 West Washington Boulevard, Crescent City, Rooms E3 and E4
• Mendocino Coast: 1211 Del Mar Drive, Ft. Bragg, Room 106 B
Members Present: Mark Winter, Mike Richards, Dave Bazard, Steve Brown, Kady Dunleavy, Ryan
Emenaker, Chris Gaines, Jennifer Gardner, Utpal Goswami (for a portion of the
meeting), Dave Gonsalves, Cindy Hooper, Allen Keppner, Philip Mancus, Susan
Nordlof, Sandra Rowan, Bobby Shearer, Gary Sokolow, Kevin Yokoyama.
Members Absent: Bob Brown.
1. Call to Order: Copresident Mark Winter called the meeting to order at 1:01.
2. Introductions and Public Comments: Copresident Mark Winter welcomed all members and
guests, and he called for public comments. No public comments were forwarded.
3. Approve the November 4 Meeting Minutes: On motion by Gary Sokolow, seconded by Kevin
Yokoyama, the minutes were approved as written.
4. Action Item
4.1 Approve Academic Standards and Policies Committee October 28 Recommendation – BP
4030 Academic Freedom Proposal: Committee member Allen Keppner presented the draft.
On motion by Kevin Yokoyama, seconded by Steve Brown, the proposal was unanimously
approved by the following roll call vote: Bazard – y, Brown, S. – y, Emenaker – y, Gaines
– y, Gardner – y, Gonsalves – y, Keppner – y, Mancus – y, Nordlof – y, Sokolow – y,
Yokoyama – y.
5. Discussion Items
5.1
Resolution Process for the Academic Senate November 18 Revision Proposal: Copresident
Winter presented the proposal, and he explained that any senator can submit a resolution,
but prior to Senate consideration, the Senate Executive Committee will review the draft and
make a recommendation for next steps. Mark clarified that the revised proposal would
allow for resolutions approved by the state Academic Senate to come to the Senate without
requiring Executive Committee review. The proposal will be forwarded for Senate
approval on December 2.
5.2 Resolution Regarding Professional Concerns Related to California Community College
Partnerships with MyEdu November 18 Proposal: Copresident Winter presented the
proposal and he explained how it is relevant to CR. Mark accessed the MyEdu website,
and he highlighted a number of faculty concerns with the product. Following discussion
that included reasons why the Senate would want to go on record as supporting the
resolution, there was agreement that the proposal will be considered for approval on
December 2.
Academic Senate Minutes
November 18, 2011
Page 2
5.3
College Council Administrative Procedure Drafts out for Constituent Review
5.3.1 AP 5070 Attendance: Because the two proposed procedures involve overlapping
issues, the Senate addressed AP 5070 Attendance and AP 5075 Credit Course Adds
and Drops in the same discussion. Kathy Goodlive presented both proposals, and
Senate feedback included the following concerns and suggestions: (1) The
Attendance proposal includes language regarding attendance in classes, and while the
term “excessive absences” is used, it is not defined. (2) Both AP’s should include a
specific number defined by the college as excessive, and once that number is
exceeded, the instructor should be allowed to drop the student. (3) Instructors should
be allowed to drop a student after census when it becomes apparent that the student is
no longer attending. (4) Nonparticipation should also be considered as a reason for
dropping a student. (5) The proposals need to include language that takes into
consideration online classes. Kathy suggested that as an interim process she would
look into the use of an FW on the transcript, which would indicate that the student got
an F because they stopped attending class. Mark reported that he would like to invite
Lynn Thiesen to attend a Senate meeting to address financial aid concerns regarding
Attendance and the Credit Course Adds and Drops proposals.
5.3.2 AP 5075 Credit Course Adds and Drops: Feedback on this proposal was included in
the 5.3.1 discussion.
5.3.3 AP 4023 Definition of a Credit Hour: Copresident Winter presented the draft, and he
reported that it is a new procedure for CR and includes language that addresses
federal regulations. Senate feedback included the need to clarify (1) that once the
curriculum is approved, the Curriculum Committee is not responsible for ensuring
that the requirements are met; (2) the difference between a classroom hour and a lab
hour; and (3) how the assessment requirements will be determined and who is
responsible for ensuring that they are met. The copresidents will forward the Senate’s
feedback to College Council.
5.3.4 AP 7217 Faculty Prioritization Process: Copresident Winter presented the proposed
process. Senate feedback included the following: (1) Whether vacated tenure track
positions are part of the prioritization process needs to be clarified; (2) It was
suggested that the Del Norte and Mendocino Coast deans be part of the Faculty
Prioritization Committee; (3) With the requirement that faculty position requests be
submitted through Program Review, the process could take up to 1 ½ years or more
before a position is filled; (4) Since fewer sections are being offered, it was suggested
that the growing or stable enrollment data be replaced with fill rates or student
demand; (5) Clarification that grant funded positions are not tenure track should be
included; (6) What parties come to “mutual agreement” in #3 of the process should be
identified; (7) How many years back is a position still considered a “replacement,”
and how are variations in the position that was vacated and the one the department
currently needs handled; and (8) The value of separating the positions into three
categories was questioned. The copresidents will forward the Senate’s feedback to
College Council for consideration.
6. Reports
6.1 Distance Education (DE) Advisory Committee Update: Distance Education Director Geoff
Cain reported that the charge of the DE Advisory Committee includes making reports to
the Senate, making recommendations to the executive staff, and forwarding
Academic Senate Minutes
November 18, 2011
Page 3
recommendations for student academic technology. The DE department also conducts
workshops and trainings, builds multi media and materials for instruction, and supports
faculty who are working with grant funded curriculum. Currently the DE Advisory
Committee is building a review process for learning management systems, which includes
a faculty Sakai satisfaction survey. To date, eighty faculty have responded to the survey,
and Geoff encouraged those who have not yet responded to please do so. Geoff reported
that the DE Advisory Committee is discussing how to interpret the survey results, and
overall the Committee wants to work with the Senate and make to decisions based on data
and faculty feedback.
6.2 College Council Administrative Procedure Drafts out for Constituent Review
6.2.1 AP 2411 Interim Policies: Copresident Winter presented the draft, and he explained
that it is intended to address the need to fill a gap when no policy or procedure is in
place but one is required for legal, fiscal or operational reasons. This proposal would
provide guidance to the administration for developing interim procedures that will
then be reviewed by College Council within six months and either ratified, revised, or
rejected.
6.2.2 AP 5530 Student Complaints Other Than Academic Complaints or Unlawful
Discrimination: Copresident Richards presented the proposal, and he explained that it
is intended to more clearly define the process. Senate feedback on the first paragraph
included the question of what is meant by, “…a challenge to a student’s academic
record…” and the suggestion that programs be specified as nonacademic.
6.3 College Update: Utpal Goswami reported that substantial discussions are taking place at
the state level regarding the budget triggers, and all indications are that both triggers will be
pulled. Both triggers would include a hike in tuition to $46 per unit, and concerns are
being raised that increases in tuition need to cease. The second statewide issue being
discussed is the Student Task Force recommendations, which if they are approved by the
legislature, will require substantial resource expenditures in order to meet the regulations.
Utpal reported that we will know by the end of next summer if any or all of the Student
Task Force recommendations are approved.
6.4 ASCR Update: Bobby Shearer reported that the smoking survey is still being conducted,
and he encouraged faculty and staff to participate. He also highlighted concerns with the
recommendations forwarded by the state Student Success Task Force and the fact that
students were only given 20 days to review the document and forward feedback.
6.5 College Council November 7 Meeting: Copresident Winter presented a status update on
several of the policy and procedure drafts previously reviewed by the Senate, and he
reported that a number of new proposals will be forwarded for Senate consideration as they
are approved for constituent review. Mark encouraged senators to access the College
Council website for a broader scope of its activities and more information on proposals that
the Council is addressing.
7. Announcements and Open Forum
7.1
7.2
November 2011 Senate Rostrum: Copresident Winter highlighted several articles in the
Senate Rostrum, and he encouraged senators to read them. He also reminded senators that
the ASCCC website is a good source of information on discussions and activities occurring
at the state level.
CR Holiday Party: Utpal Goswami announced that the CR Holiday party is scheduled for
Saturday, December 10 at the Wharfinger Building in Eureka, and he encouraged staff and
faculty to R.S.V.P. by November 30 if they plan to attend.
Academic Senate Minutes
November 18, 2011
Page 4
8. Adjournment: On motion by Kevin Yokoyama, seconded by Sandra Rowan, the meeting was
adjourned at 2:55.
Respectfully submitted by Sally Frazier, Administrative Secretary to the Academic Senate.
Next Meeting:
Friday, December 2, 1 p.m.