Tuesday, March 27, 2012
3:00 PM
Faculty Resource Center Training Room, L116
Members: Nancy Schur, Tony Anderson, Sunita Lanka, Janet Pessagno, Millicent
Madrigal, Carol Kimbrough, Steven Triano, Elsa Brisson ,Mark Weber
Mohammed Hussain, Jennifer Fellguth, Chris Moss, Melissa Stave
Absentees:
Guests: Carol Bogue Feinor, Ann Wright, Lisa Storm, Stephanie Lowe, Larry
Adams, Bryan Lofman
1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to orderat 3:04pm
2. Adopt Agenda: Elsa Brisson stated that she would not be reporting
on the Evaluation Committee.She requested that it be added on to
the next meeting’s agenda.
3. Approval of minutes 2/28/2012 : Since the agenda was not posted on
the web the approval of the minutes was also tabled for the following
meeting.
4. Public Comments (non-Senators ) Lisa Storm provided the senate with
detailed information on Open Educational Resources (The Creation
and functioning of faculty web pages, discipline sites ,institutional
priorities, students access etc.,)
5. President’s Report:
6. Reports:
A. Committee Reports
1. Legislation Action Task Force Report: Responding to
senators’ queries if any report was generated, Chris Moss
suggested that we first proceed with discussions.In
response to Ann Wright , Tony Anderson clarified that the
model used by Gavilan college was being examined by the
task force. Three bills – SB 1415 and 16- were going
forward. Issues such as requirements for BOG waivers,
and limit on units to be taken were being considered.
While Article 1066 was related to reorganizing the
Chancellor’s office, Article 1650 was associated with the
funding formula. There were suggestions (also from
Gavilan college) to oppose the legislation. These bills
which were anticipated to go forward in mid-April would
drastically affect us.
2. PPA/SLO Committee: Other : Regarding Course schedule,
the senate felt that it was necessary to make a statement
on this issue.Cheryl O’Donnell informed the senate that
course level assessment of student learning outcomes was
going on and it could be accessed on the R drive,
discipline and division- wise. Program Level Outcomes
were also ongoing and happening.The Institutional
Outcomes – SLOs and PPA committees were standardizing
assessments for sustainability. Input from GE teachers and
other institutions was sought, and we would be adopting
what was meaningful and appropriate for our institution.
Program Planning Review would be conducted in a 5 year
cycle.20% of the discipline will be placed, every year,
within a 5 year plan. Faculty worked hard on this, and
Cheryl felt that this process should not be stalled.This was
a valid endeavor and Cheryl sought the support of the
senate.
3. Curriculum Committee: Carol Kimbrough informed the
Senate that two transfer-model degree programs were
recently approved by the Curriculum Committee and will
be sent to the Chancellor’s Office for approval. These
include Communication Studies and Early Childhood
Education. These join the transfer-model degree in Math
that was approved by the Chancellor’s Office last year.
4. Other : Regarding course scheduling, the Senate felt that
it was necessary to make a statement on this issue and to
encourage the reinstatement of the Enrollment
Management Committee.
7. Action items:
A. Appointments:
1. Nomination Chair for Senate: Mohammed volunteered to
hold position of nominations chair. Nancy nominated him and
the nomination was seconded by Chris. It was approved
unanimously by the senate.
B. Academic Affairs Board Policies: Nancy stated that progress on
the Academic Policies would be needed for the Board of Trustees. A
suggestion to consult Lucy Serrano regarding direction to the
subcommittee to continue the reviewing of policies and a schedule
to bring them forward.
8. Discussion Items:
A. Course Schedule – Impact and Process:
Nancy requested Ann Wright to share the Board comments with
the members. Ann began with the issue of FTEs and a 30%
reduction of these planned for Fall. Several weeks has been spent
without knowing what the funding was /or the goals (FTEs). She
clarified that we were not cutting, but shadowing a greater
portion of the schedule. Faculty expressed that this would not
meet the needs of the students. Shadowing 30% of the schedule
was a confusing mechanism. Since Students are not aware of
“shadowed” classes, and faculty receive inconsistent messages on
how a “shadowed course” is opened.
In the past we have seen struggles to making a course come back
after it had been placed “in shadow.” Significant problems – like
insufficient pre-requisites being offered- were discussed. A by
Limiting sections of prerequisite courses it would negatively
impact student progress to degree, and future enrollments in core
courses for degrees. It was felt that cutting by 30% was evidence
of a crisis mentality. We had have 20 to 22% of reserve funds.
Twice before the college has cut offerings too drastically and then
needed taken years to rebuild to our current 7600 FTE. Faculty
supported holding at a steady 7000 FTE, although it was
countered that if not funded this would cost over a million dollars
to do. It was time to deliberate upon this process. The College has
worked so hard for the past five years to progress from probation
to accreditation. Several Senate members voiced fears that these
responses were not taking place in a solid shared governance
structure and would impact negatively on our progress.
When asked to comment, Carol Bogue-Feinor said that they had
put more into the guaranteed schedule (80%-20%) than was
planned. Stephanie Lowe said that only 200 FTEs were changed
without hurting students or faculty.When schedules were
submitted more than 20 add classes were cut. Larry Adams
commented that what was shadowed did not appear in the
schedule, specifically his discipline – Political Science. If the
shadowed sections do not show up until the last moment,
students cannot plan ahead. Ann Wright felt the idea of a
guaranteed schedule was a personal preference of the President,
and she was not going to be here to monitor the consequences.
The need of the hour was stability, and we must offer consistency.
Are we buying FTEs from other sources while reducing serving
FTEs from Hartnell courses? The Deans seemed confident that the
shadow sections would be opened as long as we had rooms and
faculty available to teach. Nancy wanted to know the role of the
Enrollment Management Committee in this process? There was
deep concern regards the uncertainty of the shadow sections,and
consequently losing students to other colleges. In order to avoid
this, It we might be able to forecast information with the help of
Survey Monkey. We could use this survey for the spring schedule.
Stephanie Lowe said we could take a stab at it with the help of the
Enrollment Management Committee, as well as the upgraded
AdAstro web technology. The members of the said committee had
not yet met. Nancy added that she hadn’t heard about the work
reduction directive from the state being as deep as 30%. If we
opened the shadow sections we would be closer to the 7000
mark.
It was decided that the Senate make a resolution to make the
Enrollment Management Committee fully functional. It was
decided to place this item on the next agenda table this as an
action item. at the following meeting.
B. Impact of Board of Trustees Termination of VP Academic affairs
and Accreditation:
Tony began the discussion by saying that many of the faculty heard
about the news from a third party. Nancy commented that no official
announcement was made. Anne Wright informed the Senate that
when no facts were presented it was difficult to comment on the
issue. The Council advises the school not to lie. It was believed that
Dr. Helm would be stepping in to shoulder the responsibilities of the
VP, as that was her statement to the press. No statement had yet
been made to the campus community. The Senate body should
demand request further information as to why there were
apprehensions about Suzanne Flannigan had been removed from
office. on grounds of immigration issues. How was this going to
impact the deans and the current work in progress? Melissa Stave
and others suggested that the senate make a recommendation that
someone other than Dr.Helm be active in the Accreditation
Committee process as Accreditation Liason Officer due to a possible
conflict of interest situation. Millicent commented that this needed
discussion. There were concerns about the President writing an
accreditation report without the consent of the people involved in the
process. There may be regrettable consequences.
Then The replacements to the various academic hiring committees
VP of academic affairs were not from the academic administration,
but rather from finance, IT, and foundation. Objections were raised
are to the procedure and not the persons and Senate members
strongly felt that faculty should protest against these changes
because such procedures dilute the academic focus and
representation on these committees. It was agreed that we needed a
resolution on this and support from the union and state government
was sought. Non- academics should not chair the committees for
faculty hires. The Deans could step in, as the administrative lead on
the academic side of the house. The Senate felt that an interim VP of
Academic Affairs was needed. Jennifer Fellguth made a motion to
empower the Steering committee to make a resolution to this effect.
The motion was M/S/A(Carol and Jennifer) unanimously.
C. Civility/Professional Conduct:
1. Acceptable Behavior: The Senate members agreed that
communication styles must reflect civility and professionalism.
Janet suggested that appropriate ethics training be offered for
flex credit. Senate members stressed the importance of having an
open dialogue to put issues out in the open. Despite cultural
differences it was possible to learn to be sensitive/aware of civil
communication practices. The Senate should urge that future
training in ethics, should cover issues that are relevant to faculty,
rather than to Boards of Trustees.
D.Academic Affairs Board Policies: Tabled to the next meeting.
E. One week versus Two week add/drop period:
1. Discussion of data: Nancy stressed the importance of
reviewing the pros and cons of the two week drop period. Could
the faculty support a consistent policy? As a senate, could we
decide on the best option? A resolution to move this as an action
item at the following meeting was M/S/A (Carol and Steve). The
use of shadows that may often open late emphasizes the need for
a consistent add period. A suggestion to accentuate the shadow
sections in color to increase student awareness was made.
F. Ajournment: 5:10 pm