Cabrillo College Faculty Senate
Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014
3-5 P.M.
Sesnon House
In Attendance: Eva Acosta, John Govsky, Calais Ingel, Jay Jackson, Sheryl Kern-Jones, Brian
Legakis, Jackie Logg, Michael Mangin, Robin McFarland, Dusty McKenzie, Diego Navarro,
Lenny Norton, Ekua Omosupe, Jo-Ann Panzardi, Yasmina Porter, Beth Regardz, Dan Rothwell,
Pam Sanborn, Peter Shaw, Patricia Stokke, Marcy Alancraig, Kathie Welch, Dale Attias, Sylvia
Winder,
Guests: Sarah Albertson, Gordon Hammer, Wanda Garner, Paul Harvell, Isabel O’Connor,
Claire Thorson, Margery Regalado, Rose Smith, John Graulty, Susan Hoisington, Terrence
Willett, Ray Kaupp, Tobin W Keller, Pantéa Karimi, Vicki Fabbri, Rhea Leonard
Note Taker: Jeffrey Leach
1.
1.
2.
1.
3.
1.
2.
4.
1.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 3:05pm
Minutes
April 8th
1. in #3 under Core Four takeaways, Diego also volunteered.
2. Minutes approved.
Announcements
Honors program asks that you encourage students to apply. All they need is a
recommendation (just a few words) from you, and to get their app in by May 1st.
Our Fourth Grade Experience is Friday, May 9th. Please sign up to teach them! We
need at least 10 more people to volunteer, and it’s only a 30-45 minute commitment,
which is usually fun. If you want help or guidance there’s lots of support available.
1. This contributes greatly to future student success. Either talk to Leslie, or Michael
to volunteer or ask for support in volunteering.
Standing Reports
President (Michael Mangin)
1. We’re accepting nominations for CCFS Pres.
1. We need a replacement election official.
1. Eva Acosta has volunteered.
2. Great Teachers Seminar is August 3-8.
3. Burrito bash was last Friday, it was well attended and lots of fun.
4. Michael has become a Grandpa.
5. There’s an event tomorrow in the upper quad, a day of action about getting the
community involved, especially in protest of repeatability issues. There will also
be a Public Forum on May 3, 6-8pm in the Hort. Center.
6. The 2014 state Scorecard for Cabrillo is public and on the Cabrillo webpage. It
looks a lot like last year with some minor changes, but it looks like they changed
the way they calculate: our numbers are up, but so are the state’s.
7. Professional development
1. The state is redefining and refunding professional development. Our
FlexWeek training is excellent, but the new approach is supposed to include
all of staff, not just teachers.
2. The state seems more serious about funding this than they have in a long time.
8. Laurel took ownership of the inconsistency in the approval process for Admin.
hires, and agreed that the process should be more complete and exhaustive.
9. CPC Update: They have been reviewing the mission statement. Senate will later
in the meeting. CPC and the Board have adopted a set of budget strategies and
values. Finally, CPC approved changing a CG class from 0.5 to 1 unit.
10. Report from Spring Plenary (Michael and Calais)
1. David Morse defeated current Pres. Beth Smith.
2. Mitchell Stevens (Stanford) gave a really good talk on the history of college
funding since WWII. We talked about what a college is, what it means, etc.
3. The Faculty Obligation Number is a formula based on 1988; many are
questioning if that standard is still equitable and useful.
4. We talked about the value of contract faculty (better for student success due to
office hours, etc.), and about getting state funding for more office hours for
adjuncts to make them more available to students. Once again, state funding is
being pursued for hiring more contract faculty statewide.
11. Resolutions
1. 2.01 passed. It recommended that colleges should be able to be accredited by
agencies other than the ACCJC.
2. 2.02 passed. A more complete description of general education goals.
1. Comment: In the proposed ACCJC standards, feedback has resulted in
less proscriptive language about SLOs and faculty evaluations, made
standards less repetitive, and added emphasis on student achievement
(transfer/completion) and student learning.
3. 7.02 passed, it allows Pass/No Pass grades in courses of your major.
4. 9.02, our resolution on repeatability partially passed: the “Whereases” were
accepted. Our first resolution passed, but our second failed. Tobin Keller and
Michael Strunk gave Michael some great anecdotal evidence for his speech.
1. Q: did you get a sense of why they weren’t supportive?
2. A: many people think it’s premature and makes ASCCC look “unserious”
if we were to get rid of the restrictions after so many people have been
working to make them productive for a long time. People probably want to
see how well things can work with the restrictions before they abandon
them. However, we still got more support than we expected.
2. VP (Calais Ingel)
1. No report.
3. Secretary (John Govsky)
1. No report.
4. Treasurer (Lenny Norton)
1. No report.
5. CCFT (John Govsky)
1. Upcoming events (mentioned in President’s report)
2. CCFT elections coming up, you should have some emails about it. Most positions
aren’t opposed, but it’s good to vote anyways.
3. Announcement: Yasmina, Jackie, Patricia, and John have formed new Adjunct
Caucus of the Faculty Senate.
6. CCEU (Dale Attias)
1. The new Classification Prioritization will make its debut in May. This will help us
get feedback and make things easier.
2. Thanks for the Burrito Bash.
7. Eva Acosta
1. No report.
8. ASCC (Abigail Kennedy)
1. Not present, but remember to encourage students to vote for student positions.
9. SLO Coor. (Marcy Alancraig)
1. ARC is trying to make things more consistent and clear in general.
2. Marcy got to speak with an ACCJC person. They said what we’re doing with
SLOs is great. Remember that their recommendations are just recommendations,
not citations.
10. VPI (Kathie Welch)
1. When we sent our rebuttal letter, leadership at ACCJC helped to contextualize
some of what our visiting team had said.
2. 13-14 is a year of budget stability. Our enrollment is still down, but most colleges
in northern California are also down this year.
3. Summer 14 is looking good; the classes we’ve chosen are filling quickly. Cybersession has been very strong. 14-15 seems like it will be probable for the college
to get back to a decent level, but it might be hard to keep doing well further in the
future.
4. Lots of things have been changing, including graduation rates and financial aid.
5. Unfinished Business
1. Fourth Grade Experience (with Leslie De Rose)
1. Covered in Announcements.
2. Strategic Plan Goals – Terrence Willett
1. We came up with some specific suggestions last time. Now we’ve got input from
CCEU and Student Senate, etc. and have gotten suggestions for many things. If
everything is approved then we’ll get to work on actually implementing things.
2. We’re at a wordsmithing stage now, but if you have more conceptual stuff to add,
there’s still time.
3. Program Improvement and Effectiveness Matrix (Specifically Criterion 5)
1. A lot of us were hesitant to let go of using Community Support as data in this
matrix, but there have also been complaints that community support is quite
difficult to calculate. Another issue is that some of the technical decisions
regarding community support data weren’t made collectively.
2. Overview:
1. The purpose of Criterion 5 is to get certain programs recognition in the PIE
data that represents their community support.
1. People who have been donating money to programs would feel unvalued
if we don’t act like we’re meeting them halfway in supporting those
programs.
2. We are only discussing a stop-gap measure for this year, since several new
criteria from the state may need to be considered in the future.
3. We started using community support data this way several years ago and from
the start we got a lot of complaints about difficulty accessing data.
3. Calculating community support:
1. Right now we propose that individual departments come up with their own
description of community support. The Foundation cannot help on this task
this year.
2. It shouldn’t be too hard for programs to collect their own data so long as we
ask for it in February, when they get a list of all the money in their accounts.
1. It’s easy to find what exists in foundation accounts, but that’s not the same
as getting accurate community support numbers.
2. Some things in community support are easy to quantify (number who
attend a show, gross income from that show, etc.) but other important
aspects of community support are very difficult to measure.
1. Some events that connect with community are really good, but don’t
generate money—these should still be represented in the data.
3. In #5, we should look at grant income from local, state-run non-profits too.
4. There has been talk of using a gradation of value for various types of
community support
1. It seems like in the future we’ll want to have data-value gradations.
2. This year we shouldn’t do that; we should have an information-gathering
process where we make it relatively easy for programs to claim various
things for their community support.
5. We should include “events,” things that aren’t lectures or shows.
1. Perhaps “events” should not be included because that would make it way
more vague and difficult to know what should or can be counted.
6. It takes a lot of work to run the really cool parts of a program like having real
dance shows, and real restaurants. These aren’t necessary for teaching, but
they greatly enhance the education we offer. We have to value the things that
the community supports because those are some of the things that make
Cabrillo exceptional.
7. We should be clear on the criteria that this part is asking for numbers.
8. We’re only talking about 7.5% of the evaluation (15 of 200 points). It’s silly
to spend so much time on this part of the matrix when it’s a marginal amount
of points.
1. Note that PIE is sort of about funding and reduction, so people care about
the 15 points.
9. This criterion will only work if some departments will accept zero community
support points.
4. In order to generate any PIE matrix this semester, we’ve got two choices: use only
qualitative data for measuring community support, or ask programs to claim
community support and award it in an all-or-nothing format.
4.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1. Move to adopt the second option, to forget a value-gradation for different
types of data, and proceed with today’s proposal of quantitative measurement
of community support.
2. Approved.
3. We need an organized way of getting input. Michael will send an email and
collect input from PCs.
New Proposed ACCJC Accreditation Standards
1. Already discussed in President Report.
New Business
ARC Report
1. Every year ARC looks at lots of the SLO and AUO assessment data that
accompanied program plans produced in a year and writes a report on trends and
emerging issues.
1. This year we gave kudos to Early Childhood Education and Art Photography
for being exemplary and doing a good job.
2. We found that some data varied a lot from program to program. We tried to
identify the factors responsible but couldn’t clearly identify particular factors
except department chair leadership.
3. New program chairs don’t currently get any training for how to be chair, so
we’re recommending that they have a bit of extra training, especially to
understand assessment.
2. Reminder—in November after our accreditation visit, CCFS approved a revised
version of Core Four assessment form separates out degree results from the GE
program and out institutional outcomes results.
3. Good news: SLO assessment is getting better, more sophisticated, and more
interesting, and some people are getting better at doing it.
4. The new CurricUNET SLO module makes things easier and clearer.
5. Move to approve the ARC Report for Spring 2014.
1. Approved.
ASCCC Spring Plenary Report
1. Covered in President’s report.
Mission Statement Reaffirmation
1. The Visioning Statement is referenced in so many documents, so the whole
Mission Statement loses some cohesion without it—it becomes too general, and it
makes it hard to talk about how we’re actually achieving our mission.
2. The Visioning Statement and the Mission Statement should be presented together,
this will give the Mission Statement more meaning.
3. Motion to approve the Cabrillo College Mission Statement as presented.
1. Approved.
Open Forum
1. Question: Yasmina wants to attend a conference but because she is adjunct
doesn’t have funding for such things. How can we get her funding?
1. Full-time faculty can give adjuncts their conference fund money. If anyone
has some extra they can spare for Yasmina, please contact her.
2. There’s been conversation about enrollment and college size, how we push our
programs, how we acquire FTES and whatnot. The way we do business is
changing.
1. We should all communicate as clearly as possible and try to be on the same
page about how to reshape the college to serve students better.
2. Partially because of the agitation around the political efforts on repeatability,
CCFT has taken on a particularly active role in areas that fall under the
purview of Faculty Senate, especially academic programs. There has been
good reason for that to come forward, but any discussions about academic
direction of the college ought to be directed by the Senate. This will be part
of the agenda for next year as we try to implement key portions of the
Strategic Plan.
3. Perhaps we should have a full discussion on our plans next meeting. Please
think about it for the next few weeks.