Tuesday, April 10, 2012
3:00 PM
Faculty Resource Center Training Room, L116
Members: Nancy Schur, Tony Anderson, Sunita Lanka,Janet Pessagno,Stelvio (in
place of Millicent Madrigal),Carol Kimbrough, Steven Triano, Elsa Brisson
,Mark Weber,Melissa Staves,Mohammed Hussain,Jennifer Fellguth,Chriss
Moss.
Guests:CorolBogueFeinor, Kathy Mendelsohn, Kelley Locke,Ann Wright, Lisa
Storm,Stephanie Lowe,Tina Esperanza,
1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to orderat 3:05pm .
2. Adopt Agenda: Jennifer Fellguth stated that she would notbe reporting on the
Evaluation Committee.She requested that it be tabled to the next meeting.
3. Approval of minutes 3/13/2012 :M/S/A (Jennifer,Tony)
3/27/2012 : Carol Kimbrough sought some clarifications, so the
approval was tabled to the next meeting – M/S/A (Jennifer, Tony)
4. Public Comments (non-Senators ) Senate member Millicent Madrigal was on
maternity leave , so Stelvio Locci would be replacing her at the senate.
5. President’s Report: Nancy spoke of the changes occurring at the state and
local levels, andher conversations with Dr. Helm. The state plenary sessions
would be held in spring at San Francisco and senators, interested in attending,
could contact her. She then spoke about resolutions 19 to 21 which would be
voted on ,on Saturday.Tony suggested a budget be made and presented to the
Board.Nancy reiterated the importance of shouldering responsibility in
supporting this ,especially since we had practically no budget ,and were
running on a tight one.She also accentuated the importance of modifying the
Disciplines list – and expanding it.
6. Reports:
A. Repetition Policy: Carol Bogue Feinor explained that it is important not to
confuse the changes being made to this policy. Repeatability is under
scrutiny now. The units for students with a W is 3 now. Initially 7 was the
maximum allowed based on number of W’s Fails and Passes, but now only
3 attempts are allowed .There is a caveat for special circumstances. Drop/
no shows are allowed only in the first two weeks.Language was going to be
in the catalogue next. Nancy also informed the senate that there were
proposals to change Title V. This would affect P.E. and Athletics.The rules
on what is repeatable are changing too. She urged everyone to read and
comment on these. Stephanie Low assured the senate that the final
language would be made available to everyone.
7. Action Items:
A. Appointments: The following appointments were M/S/A
a) Carol King to replace Alejandra Guttierez as a senator.
b) Stelvio Locci to stand in place of Millicent Madrigal who was
on maternity leave.
c) Brooke Haag appointed member to the Web Development
Steering Committee. Christina, Jim Riley, Jason Hough
volunteered to be part of this committee.Their appointments
were also approved unanimously without abstentions and
opposition.
B. Standardizing Policy:Nancy stated that we had a survey monkey, and
faculty were split on this policy. Some faculty had concerns regarding
student success while others believed thatstudents were successful.Nancy
stated that a cut-off date would help in maintaining a consistent policy.
This applies to all classes including distant education courses .The one
exception is the open entry classes.
C. Interim V.P:The present interim was Dr.Helm. Nancy informed the senate
that she had shared her concerns with Dr.Helm, and the President had
outlined her plans to her and the later the college wide committee in her
letter sent out yesterday. The other issue discussed was 50% spent on
instruction. We spent $350,000 less on instruction in 2010/2011. The
penalty for this was only 15,000 to the college – in the past colleges had to
make up the difference in subsequent years. There was a motion to put
this up for discussion. It was M/S/A ( Tony, Nancy) It was suggested
concerns could be shared at the forthcoming Town Hall meeting on the
23rd of April. These were positive efforts at the communication process.
Concerns were raised as to how could one individual handle two top
positions –also, concerns of workload and what was the time period? Ann
Wright reiterated that Presidentship was a full time job, and therefore one
individual (the President) should not be shouldering both responsibilities.
Besides these concerns, The President was leaving on June 30th.Hence the
better option would be to appoint an interim V.P. Another concern was
appointments to Committees as some of the appointments were now
persons not in Academic Positions. Concerns that this hampered
effectiveness in academic issues. A resolution was passed to support the
hiring of an interim VP vs. one person filling both roles. This would insure
academic perspective on appropriate committees and support the work of
the Academic Affairs side of the house.
D. Resolution to support Administrative structure: The general concensus
was that we need to maintain consistency –We do not want the new
President to be walking into a black hole. Therefore we need to support
the existing administrative structure could be one way to express this,
however certain limitations (retirements and budget changers could affect
the ability for the campus to support the current structure as well. It was
decided that a statement during public comments could also be made to
let the Board of Trustees know that the faculty believes stability is
important, and keeping persons in positions until the New President
arrives is important.
E. Resolution to recognize Contribution: Nancy read aloud the resolution to
recognize the services of by Carol Bogue Feinour to the Hartnell College
and the motion was M/S/A unanimously by the senate.
F. Academic Affairs Board Policies:
1. Delineation of Function Agreement
2. Grading Symbols
The motion to reorder the agenda was M/S/A unanimously.
8.Discussion Items:
A. Repetition: The State-wide Senate was against such changes in
Title V.The Senate was looking at modifying the language. It was felt that it
would be wise to stay ahead and be in charge of the language. Mention was
made of instances of changes at various colleges. Santa Monica was
offering classes – three times over the cost of regular payment. This, Nancy
commented, gave rise to the two tier system – students that could pay, and
those who couldn’t, with those who could pay obtaining classes and thus
degrees faster. These conversations, Nancy said, are happening on a larger
scale- and Senate members were encouraged to go to the Senate Webpage
and weigh in on conversations and to carefully deliberate on consequences.
At this point we moved to section D of the agenda, skipping B and
C.
D.Course Scheduling /FTE targets/ Shadows :The current FTEs are at
7,000,next year they would be at 6,000 and last year they were7,600. Our
present FTEs target is closer to 6,000. In spite of having the demand in the
community, we are unable to meet this. Our schedule has been cut to the
bare minimum. Melissa commented that only one individual was in charge -
monitoring the shadow sections. To Stephanie Low’s comment that shadow
sections were opened within 24 hours Melissa sought clarification on who
triggered the reaction. The answer was online triggers. One of the guests
said that some courses that were in the shadow were not even being
offered in the guaranteed schedule – thus what would be the triggers to
open those courses? Stephanie clarified that only 14% were in the shadow
of the total 7,000 FTEs in the fall semester. There were comments such as
why wasn’t the $28,000 put back into instruction? Was the Senate ready to
take up a position on this? The Senate voiced concern that there have not
been regular meeting of the Enrollment Management Committee, as some
senators were appointed in Fall and have not met. The Senate desires a
reactivation of the Enrolment management Committee. Melissa posed
questions such as if no one was supporting the $28,000 cut, why weren’t
we going after the reserve ? Why weren’t we having this dialogue with the
Board? Ann Wright said that we do not know what the mechanism is.
Numbers from 10% to 30% have been cut from the guaranteed schedule,
and this follows on cuts in previous years. 14% is in the shadow. There’s no
way for the students to know about the shadowing sections. From the
students’ perspective why can’t we waitlist the students? Without waitlists
– there is no way to truly capture the demand – not only for opening
showdows this term, but for planning. These issues needed clarifications..
Stelvio commented that when we have 22% in reserve in comparison with
other community colleges which have only 4/5% in reserve, why can’t we
dip into the reserve?
Resolution Revised: The motion to seek appointment of a V.P.Academic
Affairs with an amendment phrase to support Carol BF was M/S/A
unanimously.
10. Ajournment: 5:05 pm