REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Academic Senate

Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, SS 202 (Board Room)
 Fort Bragg: 440 Alger St (Fine Woodworking)
 Fort Bragg: 33403 Simpson Rd
 Crescent City: 883 W Washington Blvd, Room E7
Friday, March 6, 2015, 1:30 pm
MINUTES
Members Present: Dan Calderwood, John Johnston, Tim Baker, Colette Beaupre, Peter
Blakemore, Steve Brown, Kady Dunleavy, Danna Herrera-Thomas, Ed Macan, Laura mays
(phone), Jon Pedicino, George Potamianos, Ruth Rhodes (phone), Richard Ries (phone), Sandra
Rowan, Jessica Howard (for Sally Urban), Keith Snow-Flamer
Members Absent: Sally Urban, Jerred Scheive
Guests: Michelle Haggerty (phone), Connie Wolfsen
1. Call to Order: Copresident Dan Calderwood called the meeting to order at 1:33 pm.
2. Introductions and Public Comment: Copresident Calderwood welcomed everyone to the
meeting and called for public comments. Dave Bazard offered comments on the
success of the week’s multicultural events, both the “Good Hair” video and the
“Discussion on race and ethnicity in honor of African American History month”.
3. Approve February 20, 2015 Academic Senate Minutes: On a motion by Steve Brown,
seconded by Peter Blakemore, the minutes were approved as written.
4. Action Items
4.1 Approve Faculty Qualifications Committee Equivalency Recommendations: On a
motion by George Potamianos, seconded by Peter Blakemore, Michelle Haggerty
verified the integrity of the recommendation, and the Equivalency was approved by
roll call vote: Tim Baker – y; Colette Beaupre – y; Peter Blakemore – y; Steve Brown
– y; Kady Dunleavy – y; Deanna Herrera-Thomas – y; Ed Macan – y; Laura Mays – y;
Jon Pedicino – y; George Potamianos – y; Ruth Rhodes – y; Richard Ries – y; Sandra
Rowan – y; Jessica Howard – y.
4.2
Approve AP 3260 Participatory Governance Revisions: Copresident Calderwood
pulled this Action Item because there are simple edits that need to be looked into, and
because there are discrepancies between this procedure and another procedure. The
procedures AP 2520 Responsibilities of the Academic Senate and AP 3260 need to be
aligned.
5. Discussion
5.1 Follow-up Report on New Faculty Orientation Program: John Johnston remarked that
we will have nine new Faculty next fall. CR has had a program that was lost when the
Center for Teaching Excellence was “discontinued”. New faculty since then have not
received the kind of orientation that creates a comfortable working atmosphere. The
District is interested in creating a new Faculty Orientation Program for next year.
Feedback is requested of Senators who may have ideas about what it should and
shouldn’t look like. Are there aspects we want to bring back or drop? Comments
included statements from Senators who have and have not been through CR
orientation:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Some pieces of the old program were very valuable and some were redundant or
superfluous.
Program for new teachers (not just new to CR).
Program for those who are used to teaching and would need only CR-centric
training and also may have valuable resources to share.
Training should include room use guidelines.
Committee membership and availability.
Training should include visits to other sites (EKA, DN, KT).
Building relationships across disciplines should be highlighted.
Could this be retroactive for faculty who already work here but may never have
gone through an orientation process?
Meeting the board and going to a Board Meeting would be useful.
Different modules for orientation could be chosen based on what was needed
(opt-in for parts or the whole).
Should include Associate Faculty
Kerry Mayer would be a great mentor for this program.
Components specific for specialized groups (nursing, police academy, etc.) would
be useful.
Please forward any other suggestions to the Copresidents.
5.2
AP 7217 Faculty Prioritization Revision: Keith Snow-Flamer and the Copresidents
have been reviewing the AP in light of the previous year’s work, and Keith presented
the suggested changes to the Senate. The major change is the introduction, but two
sentences regarding NOT holding over positions from previous prioritizations were
added, and language was modified (minor cleanup). It has been looked over by ASPC.
Discussion was centered on failed searches and whether a failed search would fall
under the “no holdover” addition to the AP. A failed search (or a search where all
offers were rejected) would NOT be considered a holdover, but would be an open
position that would automatically return to the SEARCH process, not the entire
prioritization process. In the example of this term’s failed Auto search, Human
Resources and the Auto Search Committee will REPOST the job opening, perhaps at a
better time of year for getting a better pool of applicants. With all the confusion
regarding “no holdover”, it was suggested that the wording include something about
“failed” searches and the timeline involved (“open until filled”, for instance). It would
be nice if Administration could “warn” us each year about how many (0? 3? 9?)
positions will be on the plate. Also, knowing when the “best” time to advertise (and
where to publish) for positions would also help. The idea behind the “no holdover”
was to codify that the search must begin during the same year as the prioritized
position opening is announced. Copresident Calderwood will work on the language
and the AP will be brought back in future (as soon as possible) for approval by Senate.
The remaining rankings that were NOT used in this year are NOT held over the next
year. Ranking starts all over. Could the prioritization be moved up in the timeline in
order to “fit” the application process needs for all disciplines? The BUDGET also
drives the timeline and is not known until August or September. November matches
the Program Review process timeline. Please send any other suggestions to the
Copresidents.
5.3
AP 4021 Program Revitalization, Suspension or Discontinuation Revision: Academic
Standards & Procedures Committee (ASPC) Chair Connie Wolfsen presented the
revision work of the committee. Connie explained that this AP needed to parallel the
AP for developing courses (AP 4020 Program and Curriculum Development) and that
the committee used notes from the Task Forces on suggested revisions/additions to the
procedure based on problems/concerns throughout the previous process. Senators
voiced several concerns over this version:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.4
There is no detail to the process for the affected discipline to present information
to the Task Force (Step Two is “vague”).
There should be a specific process for objecting/commenting/supplementing the
report of the Task Force.
The VOTE should be documented, not necessarily the “who” but the number of
“yays” and “nays” in order to show transparency in the process.
ASPC might contact past Task Force chairs for other revisions.
Perhaps add allowing faculty/administration to present their views at a meeting of
the Task Force.
Processes for feedback should be more specific.
Err on the side of transparency.
Connie will take all suggestions to the ASPC for consideration. The AP will be
brought back in April for Action. Senator Ed Macan will be invited to the ASPC
meeting when this procedure is revised.
Faculty Professional Development Program Ideas: Copresident Johnston presented the
list from the February 27 Faculty Meeting. He then suggested that the Senate could
assemble a list of 10 goals to forward to Human Resources (yearly) as ideas for
Faculty Professional Development. Suggested refinements to the list were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Receive feedback from students.
Definitely include diversity-related trainings.
Use the Institutional Plans to guide the list
Prioritize trainings that are already listed in Plans in order to demonstrate our
implementation of Plans (Quote from Copresident Calderwood: “… we’re talking
about aligning with our Plans! That wasn’t being discussed five years ago! This is
a Monumental Moment when we recognize how goals reflect Plans!).
Partnership with HSU, as they have trainings in place.
Training modules could be exchanged with HSU.
6. Reports
6.1 President Search Committee Update: Copresident Johnston reported that three
candidates are slated for “meet and greets” next week on Monday, Tuesday and
Wednesday (Mar. 9, 10, &11) and encouraged Senators to attend as many of the
forums as possible including the one for Academic Senate.
6.2 College Update: Keith Snow-Flamer will be sending out the Associate Dean request
for applications.
6.3 ASCR Update: Jerred Scheive was absent.
7. Announcements and Open Forum
8. Adjournment: On a motion by Peter Blakemore, seconded by Deanna Herrera-Thomas, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:58 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 p.m., Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday.