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, Chriss 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 minutes were
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: 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, 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 as an action item.
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. 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 request further information as to why Suzanne
Flannigan had been removed from office. 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 Liaison 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.
The replacements to the various academic hiring committees were not from the academic administration, but rather from finance, IT, and foundation. Objections were raised 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