ACADEMIC SENATE
COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO
csmacademicsenate@smccd.edu
Governing Council Meeting
Mar. 13, 2007 minutes
Members Present
Jeremy Ball
Diana Bennett
Lloyd Davis
Alain Cousin
Andria Haynes
Teresa Morris
President
Vice-President
Secretary
ASCSM
Business/Creative Arts
Library
Madeleine Murphy
Eileen O’Brien
Yasha Rezaeihaghighi
James Robertson
Brandon Smith
Carlene Tonini
Language Arts
Student Services/Counseling
ASCSM
Social Science
Language Arts
Math/Science
Others Attending
Tom Diskin
Technology
Dan Kaplan
AFT
CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 2:25 pm. The agenda was approved. Jeremy noted he
culled the list of future agenda items, and is always interested in suggestions for that list. The minutes of Feb. 27
were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENT Teresa invited faculty to the pizza party at the library Friday, March 23, 1-5 p.m., at
which they are invited to weed the collections in their areas and talk to librarians about their needs. Eileen
reminded faculty tomorrow is the get linked career and vocational job fair, 9-1 in building 5. Send students. 85
employers will be there.
VICE-PRESIDENT’S REPORT Diana is working with Valerie Tyler, CSM web coordinator, on redesigning
the Senate website. It will be more accessible and easier to use. Valerie holds a one year position. After the
redesign, Diana will post minutes on the site. Faculty may send suggestions and links to Valerie.
FACULTY APPOINTMENTS Faculty on the ethnic studies screening committee are Jeremy Ball, James
Clifford, Zelte Crawford, John Kirk, Larry Owens, and Carolyn Ramsay. The committee meets our guidelines
though it has no Latino member. Ethnic Studies has a very diverse curriculum so we are unlikely to find one
person to teach all types of classes. The department relies heavily on adjuncts.
Diane reported progress on forming a screening committee for Dean of Social Science. Jeremy reported Lyle
Gomes will serve in place of Judith Pittman on the Dean of Business/Creative Arts screening committee, since
all faculty on the original committee were female. Lyle was invited to serve on the original committee but had
time restrictions, which Dean Martha Tilmann has assured us will not be a problem. It is harder to find meeting
times as these committees grow larger. The work should be done by the end of the school year. It is excessive to
ask faculty to come in during summer break. With the retirement of Al Acena and Linda Avelar, the most senior
deans will be Susan Estes (13 years) and Martha Tilmann (2 years.) The VPI position now opening up has
typically been taken by a dean.
Members introduced themselves to Yasha Rezaeihaghighi, our new ASCSM representative.
INFORMATION/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mike Claire’s High School Summit outreach project is scheduled for the San Mateo Library Friday, March 16.
A goal of Chancellor Galatolo is to increase connections with local high schools. A faculty group is in the
exploratory phase of looking at turning high school AP courses into CSM courses, as one way to expand
concurrent enrollment. The connection to local high schools is an important part of what we do.
Faculty Office Survey Results 41 faculty in buildings 15 and 17 responded to a survey Anne Stafford prepared
about priorities for windows in the new faculty office building. Division offices ranked first, since their people
2
are there eight hours a day. Two-person offices came in second, then single offices. This will go forward as a
recommendation to the bridging architects. We will see plans when we have design-build team on campus.
We are 40,000 square feet over budget for the new buildings. Our $120 million is a lot, but we have to scale back
expectations. If we were willing to go with all double offices, we would save 2000 sq ft. When asked how
faculty would feel about that Jeremy took a hard stand, but he wanted to ask us. A benefit is it is more egalitarian.
A worry is it could lead to the sort of ridiculous hard feelings some had over access to Lot 6 some years ago.
Members cited the importance of privacy and confidentiality in consultations with students. Counselors and
advisors have single offices, and Building 36 has consultation rooms for privacy. Carlene said her Building 36
office is shared by three people, but there is plenty of space and she enjoys the company. Faculty are actually
getting more work done, in particular in collaborative curriculum development. The campus hadn’t been set up
for that, but now Building 36 is. The momentum in development of new labs has increased exponentially.
Dan expressed concern about the divisiveness of the single vs. double office issue. It would make sense to have
most instructors in offices with colleagues. If a third of the rooms are to be singles, we need near-unanimity on
criteria. Besides confidentiality, should access to singles be based on seniority? Jeremy noted the survey of
faculty preference showed an even split between singles and doubles. The current proposal is for 83 singles and
40 doubles. A single is 110 sq ft, a double 165 sq ft. Jim said adjuncts are concerned about being separated from
full-timers. Jeremy said a general paradigm for doubles will be a full-timer at one desk and two or three parttimers sharing the other desk. We will also have two four-desk flexible workspaces, for evening faculty needing
only a staging area and a place to store things.
Jeremy said we should take the single/double issue back to faculty. It helps if we are willing to compromise, for
example by giving back 1000 square feet by giving single offices only to advisors. As part of the Student
Services plan, counselors will go to 10N, though Jeremy, Teresa and others have concerns with that. It is best to
be team players. Currently advisors have double-size single offices. Jeremy said the architects see our problem
as scheduling issues that could be resolved by, for example, having double offices shared by advisors and evening
faculty, so the advisor has privacy during the day. The bridging architects are very interested in listening to our
views and getting them into their document. Mike Claire has invited Jeremy to attend cabinet meetings when
building issues arise. The cabinet makes the final decisions and Jeremy feels regarded highly there. Jeremy
needs a sense of what faculty are thinking. Is the single office issue no big deal? We know what faculty would
prefer if they could have anything they wanted. Now we want to know how important it is to them. What are the
tradeoffs? Giving advisors access to single offices so they don’t have to carry their computers and paperwork to
conference rooms seems to be a need.
College budget shortfall. There is no prospect of pink slips, but CSM’s projected shortfall is $2.6 million. If we
can cut $1 million the district will give us support. Our last big shortfall five years ago had a clear cause from the
state. This one is mostly due to the new allocation model, and we saw it coming. Rick Ambrose has said the
model is fair but does give us less funding. Another reason is our administrators incorrectly assumed we would
meet certain modest levels of growth. Instead, we shrank a little. Together these led to a significant drop. Tom
said based on his experience five years ago we have to be watchful the cuts don’t come entirely from instruction.
Everything on the cut list then was in instruction – classes and adjuncts. The Senate built a brick wall until the
cuts were equalized. The plan for managed hiring of classified staff was a direct result of Senate action. The
District office made some cuts as well. The senate has asked that deans not be pressured to cancel relatively small
classes, and Jeremy was told they would try not to. Cancelling classes resulted in our current lower enrollments.
He asked at budget subcommittee and elsewhere that managed scheduling be practiced. Look at class times, and
try to have deans coordinate scheduling to have our transfer and program level courses distributed to meet student
needs. If there are cuts, make them invisible to students by not cutting classes listed in posted schedules, so
students won’t sign up for things that get cut. Students don’t come back if they’re told their class has been cut.
They have other options. 95% of our budget is personnel, so that’s where the savings are.
Jeremy told the CSM budget subcommittee faculty have worked hard evaluating their performance through
program review and SLOs, but our openness about our strengths and weaknesses may be jeopardizing our
positions since it makes it easy to see where to cut. Is there a similar mechanism for administrators? Henry
3
Villareal said in Student Services, there is, but Jeremy heard no similar admissions from other areas. Our
honesty and forthrightness about our strengths and weaknesses have hurt us relative to other groups.
Dan made some observations about the impending budget crisis. He said that five years ago when 541 sections
were cut in one fell swoop, and 110 adjuncts were laid off, a negative spiral was set in motion we’ve never gotten
out of. The administration had a cavalier attitude about the cuts since they expected the district to become basic
aid. All our eggs were in that basket. At meetings at Skyline called by administration, the new budget allocation
model was blamed for Skyline’s shortfall. In fact, Skyline’s problems have more to do with its response to the
previous budget crisis. CSM and Skyline are facing shortfalls at a time when district administration is interested
in replicating College Vista faculty housing at Skyline and Canada. They say it will use different money, but
money is fungible, and allocation of funds can be a shell game. Tom agreed that the alleged budget shortfall
smells manufactured. He expressed concern that some top level administrators may have decided money can be
spent more profitably in areas other than classes or decent salaries.
Jeremy said Canada is hiring eight new faculty members. Dan reported Skyline is hiring almost as many. That
CSM gets only four seems not right. Jeremy cited the importance of bringing faculty expertise to budget
committees. Rick Ambrose is serving at CSM, and John Kirk at the district level. Skyline didn’t have managed
hiring like CSM’s, so their financial commitment to classified staff is way higher than ours. Their budget
shortfall is a result of that. CSM is running lean. We will hire a few people who left en masse for the district.
Diana said she doesn’t see help from administration to add more students. Tom said new classes are some of the
best kept secrets on campus. The college needs to market them to the community. Tom’s alternative energy class
was listed as fiber optics until Dec. 15, so few could sign up for it. Differences between the printed and online
class schedules contributed to declining enrollments. It is ridiculous that they got through the system.
Dan said our enrollment management task force (EMTF) seems to have fizzled. ASCCC has produced all sorts of
really excellent papers on enrollment issues, but our EMTF hasn’t pursued them. The available options are
enormous. Dan said this requires visionary thinking, in which the EMTF hasn’t been engaged, and he would be
hard pressed to offer a few sentences on what the group has done. We need a comprehensive enrollment
management program. EMTF has lots of members and subcommittees. Diana has sent it suggestions, for
example to send “time to enroll” welcoming reminders to students. The Strategic Planning Committee is aware
our central marketing person Helen Hueg is on extended maternity leave and in all likelihood will not return.
Skyline hired outside evaluators who gathered data and made suggestions about strengths and weaknesses in
student access. Jing Luan was an author of that report, which provided a nice look at what the college could do.
Mike Claire is interested in doing that here, perhaps in-house rather than by outsiders. What is it like for students
coming in? How do students find out about our offerings? Community colleges often serve students who don’t
have cars. Can we identify transportation routes for students? Are there options that could improve access, like
shuttle buses? What is the CSM experience like for diverse groups, from a student perspective? Are there
alienating factors, or are we inviting and welcoming?
Eileen, Jeremy and Dan discussed retention. Over 50% of students are here only one semester. We can work
harder to keep students here. 46% of students don’t return from one semester to the next. Four year schools have
the same problem. 50% of incoming CSU freshmen don’t make it to graduation. Let’s put this data into faculty
hands. Such numbers are low statewide. We are not the transfer institution we once thought we were. High
percentages of our students don’t place into transfer level math, English, or reading. Some students have to take
four or five classes to get to transfer level. We may want our student body to be like it was thirty or forty years
ago, but it isn’t, and it’s declining. If our goal is retention, we must think long and hard.
Jeremy asserted the primary goal of the Senate is to protect standards. The union protects faculty interests. We
protect quality. Prerequisites are enforced in math and some of the sciences. Social Science has discussed
increasing writing prerequisites. The great fear is tightening prerequisites will cause courses to lose enrollment.
If we persuade faculty across the district to raise prerequisites, it could improve retention. Students would have to
stay in school to get the higher level English. Courses which transfer to CSU must have high standards. Jeremy
reported in Florida, students who don’t test into transfer level English cannot take transfer level courses. A
problem for us is some students would need years in community college to reach that level. For us to uphold high
4
standards if our neighbors, including CCSF and Foothill/de Anza, do not, won’t work. We need to communicate
with their faculty senates. They should have the same interests we do. College courses are articulated by college,
not district, so prerequisites may vary from college to college within our district. We need to get faculty of the
three colleges to agree. That takes a long time.
Yasha spoke about two problems she had with concurrent enrollment as a high school student: transportation, and
getting information. Students are not always aware of concurrent enrollment opportunities. She first learned
about the Middle College High School option not from A&R, which she asked, but from her friend’s brother, after
it was too late for her to sign up. Transportation between CSM and high school is also a problem. Jeremy said it
would be worth subsidizing such transportation to keep students. Tom remarked friends’ brothers are not a
consistent marketing tool. Diana reported add slips she signed were returned because A&R didn’t believe the
signature was hers. Students were unable to get through to register on line, even in her presence. Students are
getting incorrect information from admissions, which is where many start. On the transportation issue, Tom said
there should be better public transportation by us or by SamTrans, and we should revamp the parking permit
process. Parking should be free for everyone. Parking fees for students are exorbitant. Faculty and staff don’t
pay. CSU faculty do pay. When Tom was on the staff at Cal Poly he had to pay the same amount as students.
Jeremy said there are concerns around marketing and the experience of students. What are the barriers, and which
could we remove? Might we form a subcommittee of Governing Council to push Mike Claire to systematically
look at these issues and perhaps pay for a meaningful assessment? Dan suggested we also explore what EMTF is
really doing. Do they have minutes, if so where? What do they talk about? Jeremy called for coordination of
current efforts first. Who is doing what? He appreciates EMTF efforts but feels they should bump it up a level.
We should take ourselves more seriously. Dan said we need a coordinated task force. AFT put together a
comprehensive EMTF proposal several years ago and took it to District Shared Governance Council. All other
constituencies favored it but it was blocked by management. Gus Petropoulos said it was a management concern
and nobody else needs to be involved. This was when they expected us to become basic aid. Now that
enrollment management is a real need, they still aren’t doing anything.
Yasha reported she started at CSM but last year transferred half of her units to Skyline because CSM had no
tutorial center. Skyline has tutors near faculty offices. Jeremy mentioned the future Integrative Learning Center.
Yasha also said library hours are not good. She described going up and down the peninsula with friends to find
places to sit and study. Teresa said there is need for study space, but the library is not the only place people study,
and one Thursday night during a recent finals week only five students showed up, though the library was open
until 9 pm. Things could change, but the numbers don’t bear out a shortage of hours. Students do want access to
a computer lab after 2 pm on Fridays, when the library and most or all other computer labs are closed. Jeremy
said having no afternoon classes results in few students being here in the afternoon, which results in no afternoon
classes. It’s a self-perpetuating problem. The new buildings will provide an opportunity to address this.
The shortened calendar is regaining interest. It starts after Labor Day and has a winter intersession. Though
compressed, it provides the same number of contact hours. Tom said serious issues are not being addressed
regarding labs and classes where the amount of material per week is limited because students need time to work
with new information. The calendar’s fast track approach has worked poorly in business and industry for years.
Tom had experience in the 80’s and early 90’s with instruction coordinated with the state employment office.
There were problems with the time constraints. Jeremy said the short calendar issue died during the last budget
crisis, but he wants to bring it back. Faculty have done some good work on it. Dan said there was vigorous
debate on the calendar, and the Advocate ran many articles pro and con, for which he has citations. The faculty
was 50-50. Jeremy will put this on the agenda for our March 27 meeting. We could get the dialogue up and
going before the District Academic Senate (DAS) does.
NEW BUSINESS – PEER EVALUATION FORMS FOR ONLINE COURSES Madeleine reported work is
continuing on peer evaluation forms for online courses. At the request of District Academic Senate (DAS,) Julie
Sevastopoulos proposed a draft version of the classroom visit form, incorporating suggestions from Madeleine
and others. Madeleine called it fine, different, and really detailed. Jeremy recalled we considered two models last
year for peer evaluation forms and student questionnaires: 1) modify existing forms, 2) use information from the
ASCCC website on best practices to create new forms. Last year CSM’s Governing Council recommended the
5
best practices approach, as did Skyline. Canada went with modifying existing forms. Madeleine distributed
Julie’s handouts from two meetings ago, including a pithier modification of the student questionnaire, showing
current questions and Madeleine’s suggested revisions. Other instructors are looking at it. Jeremy said faculty
have done a lot of work. Let’s finish and get the tools in place. Governing Council will forward the documents to
AFT and to the resource committee of the Distance Education Advisory Committee (DEAC), which makes
recommendations to DAS. Diana is on the resource subcommittee.
Madeleine asked if we could use the forms at CSM before they are approved district-wide. Jeremy said
traditionally evaluation has been a union matter. Hence it is reasonable to approve a district-, not college-level
form. Jeremy suggested having it as a potential evaluation form, and if faculty agree to use it, do so. Madeleine
said she is uncomfortable doing anything informal. What action could we take if, using such an approach, we
found someone was doing an awful job? Carlene said faculty teaching and developing online course want to have
these guidelines. If you play the game, it’s nice to see the rules. People appreciate the direction the best practices
document gives. Madeleine said we are blurry on this campus between mentoring and evaluation. Mentors give
suggestions but evaluators do not. We need to distinguish evaluation from support. Jeremy said that is true of
tenure review, but less so for peer review. Diana said DEAC’s resource subcommittee’s big issue is support and
training for faculty.
Jeremy presented a birthday card to “our awesome secretary” Lloyd Davis and a thank you card to Past President
Tom Diskin. He told Tom he would have liked to get something more pricey, but “you know our finances.” A
chocolate cake was shared in honor of Lloyd’s 65th birthday. Yasha stated she is doing a survey on library hours
and asked to be allowed to drop in on classes for that purpose.
NEW BUSINESS – SMOKING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Jeremy distributed results of the smoking
survey. With 1290 participants, it had a very high response rate. There were basically two questions: do you
agree with current policy, and what changes would you like enacted. Students were 50-50 on the present policy,
whereas faculty were two-to-one against. Both groups favored multiple easily accessible areas for smokers.
College Council is now authorized to change our smoking policy, and has been working on it for more than a
year. In the past it was set at the district level. Jeremy proposed he take forward the position we favor changing
the policy to create multiple easily accessible areas designated for smoking. This is a compromise between those
who want no second hand smoke and those who want a place to smoke. Skyline created smoking zones but is
now considering going smoke-free. Skyline is more compact than CSM, so finding smoking areas should be
easier here. Building 36ers initiated this out of concern its bridge would be congested with smokers. The
professionals thinking about the design of the outside atmosphere of the college could craft smoking areas to
respect both smokers and non-smokers. People with strong concerns should forward them to Jeremy. Both sides
can see this as a meaningful middle ground. Tom said Shasta College in Redding has a half dozen covered
smoking areas with picnic tables around campus. 10 to 20 people can gather in each. Andria asked whether we
want that much space for smoking areas when the trend is toward smoke-free campuses. Jeremy said CCSF and
deAnza are generally smoke-free.
Jeremy found lots of data at the Surgeon General’s website about the health effects of smoking. Some people
want to prevent smoking because it is obnoxious. Jeremy is hesitant to restrict smoking for that reason. Lots of
things are obnoxious. He sees smoking areas as a step in the evolution of our campus. It says to smokers we
respect your choices but we don’t want them affecting our health. Our present policy doesn’t work. Andria sees
smoking as a health issue, and asked who will enforce the policy. Jeremy said students don’t smoke in class,
though there are no “smoking police.” We are working with rational people, so enforcers shouldn’t be needed.
Let’s follow the Skyline model. Smoking zones are a good first step. Make a space for smoking, but do not
alienate people. Alain reported ASCSM discussed why have smoking areas at all when the trend is to go
nonsmoking? Why spend the architects’ time and money, when in 19 months, the smoking areas may be gone?
Tom said the hard-to-move concrete ashtrays near buildings attract smokers. Years ago CSM was known as
“high school with ash trays.” Tom asked members to tell colleagues this is the message Jeremy will carry, and to
contact Jeremy with comments.
ADJOURNMENT Other new business was moved forward to future meetings. The meeting was adjourned at
4:16 pm. The next meeting will be March 27.