ACADEMIC SENATE ATTENDANCE & MINUTES
18th May 2010
Attendance (X indicates present, exc indicates excused, pre-arranged absence)
Adjunct Faculty
Mangan, Michael(Hum)
X
Behavioral & Social Sciences
Firestone, Randy
X
Gold, Christina
X
Moen, Michelle
X
Widman, Lance
X
Wynne, Michael
X
Business
Siddiqui, Junaid_________________X
Lau, Philip S
X
Counseling
Jackson, Brenda_______________X
Jeffries, Chris
_X
Key, Ken
X
Pajo, Christina
X
Fine Arts
Ahmadpour, Ali
Bloomberg, Randall
Crossman, Mark
Schultz, Patrick
Wells, Chris
Learning Resources Unit
Striepe, Claudia
X
Ichinaga, Moon
_____EXC
Mathematical Sciences
Boerger, John
Fry, Greg
Glucksman, Marc_______________ X
Taylor, Susan
X
Yun, Paul______________________X
Natural Sciences
Cowell, Chas
Herzig, Chuck_______________ X
Jimenez, Miguel ______________X
Palos Teresa__________________X
Vakil, David
X
X
X
Academic Affairs
Chapman, Quajuana
X
__ X
Health Sciences & Athletics
Hazell, Tom
McGinley, Pat__________________X
Rosales, Kathleen ______________X
Humanities
Isaacs, Brent
X
Marcoux, Pete
___X
McLaughlin, Kate
X
Peppard, Bruce
X
Simon, Jenny __________________X
ECC CEC Members
Evans, Jerome
Norton, Tom
Panski, Saul
Pratt, Estina
Smith, Darwin
Assoc. Students Org.
Casper, Joshua
Safazada, Ana
Stokes, Philip
X
Begonia Guereca
X
Ex- Officio Positions
Industry & Technology
Gebert, Pat
X
Hofmann, Ed_________________X
MacPherson, Lee
X
Marston, Doug
X
Arce, Francisco_______________X
Nishime, Jeanie ______________X
Shadish, Elizabeth
Kjeseth, Lars
X
Guests and/Other Officers: Barbara Jaffe, Carolyn Pinedo,
Unless noted otherwise, all page numbers refer to the packet used during the meeting, not the
current packet you are reading now.
The 7th Academic Senate meeting of the Spring 2010 semester was called to order at 12:34pm
Approval of last Minutes:
The minutes [pp. 9 -15 of packet] from the May 4th Academic Senate meeting were reviewed.
Dr. Simon noted two correction on pg 12, and Dr. Jaffe asked for two words to be inserted. The
minutes were approved as amended following a motion from Mr. Marcoux, seconded by Mr.
Kjeseth.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS
President’s report – Dave Vakil (henceforth DV)
[see pp. 5-8 of packet]
DV mentioned the electronic Senate Survey, and asked senators to check their emails for the
link and please complete the survey. Mr. Mangan noted that he had not seen the email, and DV
asked any senators who had not received the email to contact him. DV wants to present the
survey results on June 1. DV also reminded the senators about two other current surveys - the
Winter survey & the LRU/Library Satisfaction survey – noting that the information gathered
will prove very useful for improving services and planning for resources.
DV fielded a question about what faculty are allowed to require students to purchase
for a class. Examples like access codes to online tools were mentioned. DV said there had been
some email discussion on the topic. Ms. Taylor asked whether the Academic Senate would be
addressing this issue in the near future as she still was not clear on the issue. Dr. Arce suggested
leaving the issue to the Division Deans to address, and said he would get the information to the
Deans. Mr. Wells suggested putting the information in the syllabus template. Mr. Marston was of
the opinion that it was too late for students to react if they only got the information in the syllabus
once they had signed up for a class and suggested the information be placed in the schedule of
classes. Dr. Arce said that the college did not have the resources to do that but the bookstore has a
list of all the required textbooks online, with prices. Mr. Bloomberg said that his art class has an
extensive supply list, and it would certainly be relevant for students to know about it when
deciding to enroll. Ms. Jackson suggested having a not in the schedule of classes pointing to the
bookstore url and information.
DV said we would be talking about the priority registration issue [see pp. 37-47 of packet] and
that Bill Mulrooney was present to lead the discussion.
DV noted that re: the hiring process deviation, a written explanation had been provided by VP
Arce [see pp.16-17 of packet]
DV noted the at last night’s Board of Trustees meeting, Inglewood USD had bussed in several
students to speak. Inglewood USD City Honors wants more ECC (or other CC) classes taught on
their campus or other sites in the area. The students were also concerned by the cuts to music
program, especially beginning classes. Most of these issues were related to the budget cuts. Mr.
Widman wondered whether, seeing as how the high school classes count toward FTES, having
these classes meant a cut in on-campus class sections? Dr. Arce noted that the high school classes
are over cap, but pointed out that many of the classes are offered through the Compton campus.
DV reported that at least one board member (Mr. R. Gen) was considering NOT approving field
trips to Arizona for fear of students being detained (e.g. AB 540 students). It was noted that the
Native American club goes on trips to New Mexico which entails driving through Arizona.
DV announced the need to elect the President-Elect of the Academic Senate, noting that the
term will be 1-year as President-elect in 2010-2011, which would lead to a term as the next
Academic Senate President, serving a two-year term in 2011-2012, 2012-2013. This item was not
on the agenda, but Mr. Marston made a motion to amend the agenda to allow for this business,
and the motion was approved.
Pete Marcoux, Chair of the election committee, reviewed the list of nominees. There was only
one nominee – Chris Gold – and PM asked for other nominees from the floor. Hearing none, Mr.
Wells moved to close the nominations. This was accepted. Mr. Marcoux moved to accept Dr.
Gold by acclimation. The vote was unanimously in favor, and Dr. Chris Gold was appointed as
the President –elect. DV congratulated Dr. Gold, and noted that he had her first project - to attend
the Academic Senate Leadership Conference in June/July.
VP – Compton Center - Saul Panski (SP)
No report.
Curriculum Committee – Lars Kjeseth (LK)
LK said he would talk about textbooks later in the meeting.
VP - Educational Policies – Chris Jeffries (CJ)
CJ noted that she would talk about BP 4100 later in the meeting.
VP - Faculty Development – Chris Gold (CG)
CG reported that there were 2 sets of (abridged) minutes from prior meetings [see pp. 24-28of
packet] CG noted that Adjunct faculty award information was also available [see pp. 29 – 32 of
packet], but that the award packet was not yet complete and that the Committee still had to
approach the Foundation. CG also said that the Fall Flex day had a theme – “ Connecting with the
Campus”, and that fun presentation titles were being developed and potential presenters were
being contacted.
VP - Finance & Special Projects/Planning & Budgeting Committee (PBC)– Lance Widman (LW)
No report.
Council of Dean’s Meeting Report –Moon Ichinaga (MI)
[see pg.33 of packet] for written report.
VP – Legislative Action – Chris Wells (CW)
CW reported on a leadership conference he had attended. One address concerned ensuring college
affordability. It was thought that funding cuts may not go lower, and the perception was that 1440
will pass, which would guarantee transfer from community colleges to the California State
universities. CW said they would be accepted in their major, if they had an AA degree in that
major. It was also noted that most community college students who transfer graduate with 150
units. They only need 120 units. These extra units are perceived as unnecessary, and colleges
must try and get students not to take more classes than are needed. If the Governor passes the
budget, CSULB may be accepting Spring 2011 transfers (contingent on some details). DV asked
the ECC counselors to take note, and Ms. Jeffries said they would get official notification.
REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Technology – Pete Marcoux (PM)
No report.
Student Learning Outcomes – Jenny Simon (JS)
JS noted that the Program level SLO assessment has a June deadline date. The core competency
assessment is underway, and has targeted particular classes and faculty, so this is not a blanket
assessment.
UNFINSIHED BUSINESS
Resolution of Appreciation for Dr. Jaffe
DV invited Dr. Jaffe to the front and announced that the Academic Senate wished to recognize
Dr. Jaffe for outstanding service and leadership. DV presented Dr. Jaffe with roses and read the
resolution aloud. DV said a signed copy of the resolution will be presented to Dr. Jaffe once the
typos have been corrected, and the senators have all had a chance to sign it. A correctly sized
frame will also be bought to showcase the resolution. Dr. Jaffe said thank you, noting that she
was humbled and honored by the award.
Strategic Initiatives – Dr. J. Nishime (JN)
JN spoke of the recent Planning Summit to review the college mission statement and current
initiatives. The original initiatives were revised in 2007, when ECC and CEC formed their
partnership, and were intended to see the college through for three years. The initiatives from this
Planning Summit will take the college through the period 2011 – 2014. There was good
representation from both colleges at the summit and also from faculty, staff and students. JN, Dr.
Spor and Irene Graf took the raw data generated at the Summit and distilled it into seven
initiatives. JN had intended to send them out to faculty/staff for prioritization, but then it had been
suggested to adopt all seven. These will become goals that we can use for planning. They have
been kept generic so that they can be adapted for use by any Division/area. The Dean’s Council is
in favor of adopting all seven. The ECC CFT suggested adding the words”consultation and
collaboration” to Initiative C, and Dr. Shadish had suggested adding the words “through
collegial consultation”.
Ms. Jeffries said that she agreed with both additions and was in agreement with the idea of
adopting all seven initiatives. Mr. Widman asked for a point of clarification that initiatives would
equal goals? JN said yes, this was the case. Mr. Widman said that in Initiative G the phrase
“promote environmentally…” was not clear and suggested for clarification the words
“environmentally sustainable practices…” Dr. Arce suggested “promote sustainable and
environmentally sensitive practices”.
Mr. Marcoux asked how this tied to SLO’s and core competencies. Dr. Simon said this was
covered under the term “assessment” and repeated that the initiatives were being kept broad so as
to be adaptable for use in many contexts. Mr. Kjeseth noted that SLO’s and core competencies
are student centered and the initiatives are goals for the campus.
Mr. Widman suggested using the term “shared governance” in Initiative C. JN said that the
phrase was not used in any legislature, and was more of a grass roots term. Mr. Marcoux
countered, saying the term is used in the Ed. Code. DV asked Mr. Marcoux to send him the
language. Mr. Marcoux made a motion to adopt the seven initiatives as amended, seconded by
Mr. Widman. The motion passed, with Mr. Marston abstaining. This will now go back to College
Council for discussion and then to the Board of Trustees. Once adopted, these will form the goals
for the 2011- 2014 planning cycle.
BP 4100 and AP 4100 – Graduation Requirements for Degrees and Certificates – Education
Policies Committee - Chris Jeffries (CJ)
[See SUPPLEMENT inside the packet to replace pp. 34-35 of packet]
This is the Second reading. CJ noted that amendments had been made to the policy and
procedures following suggestions made at the first reading. Area 1A of the Procedures has been
expanded with several sub-points, and some typos corrected. 1Aiii incorporated Mr. Firestone’s
suggestion re: adding community colleges. CJ said she had noted mention of a 12 unit residency
during the Dean’s Council discussion and wanted to understand the context. Dr. Nishime said that
other institutions also had a minimum number of units associated with residency, and it was felt
that 50% of the units should be attained at El Camino College. Dr. Arce noted that ECC is
surrounded by other smaller colleges whose reputation is not as good as that of El Camino
College. Dr. Nishime said that AA degrees are getting more cachet and attention nationally so the
issue is to be taken seriously. Mr. Widman was not sure this was an issue if we ensure the other
college courses met our rigorous standards. Dr. Nishime said that we could not ensure that. Mr.
Wells, said that while the option did not exist for us, the CSU system had an arrangement
whereby students could get a degree from the Consortium of CSUs. Mr. Key said that technically
the courses should be degree applicable. We do allow activity courses to count for general
education requirements. Would 12 units of Physical education be enough for a degree from ECC?
What does it do to the standing of an ECC degree if no “real” courses are taken at ECC? Mr.
Marcoux asked how many students we were talking about. It seemed the counselors encountered
a minimal number of instances. Dr. Arce suggested adding “degree applicable” study to 1C. Ms.
Rosales said that the issue and numbers might seem marginal now but once students catch on to
this loophole we may risk compromising our integrity. Dr. Nishime said that these suggestions
and comments were helpful. She noted that CSU schools have a tier for transfers. Tier 1 students
get preferential admission. We are currently not Tier 1 for any school, but if we were this issue
could make a difference. Mr. Key noted that in the past when the Associate Degree Taskforce had
convened they did use the “degree applicable” language. He agreed with Dr. Arce that this
language should be reinstated. Mr. Marcoux suggested adding another bullet re: the petition
process.
DV suggested taking the item back to the Educational Policies Committee for further review. CJ
wanted clarification on exactly what to review. It was suggested the Committee look at what
other schools have done, and ask for participation from the Dean’s Council and Drs. Arce and
Nishime re: their concerns. CJ noted that interested bodies could come to the next meeting on the
25th May at 1pm. Other feedback on the issue can be sent via email to CJ
Enrollment Priority BP 5055 and AP 5055 – Bill Mulrooney (BM)
[see pp.36-37 of packet for existing procedure, pg. 38 for proposed amended policy, and pp.39-45
for proposed new procedure]
DV welcomed BM to the meeting to answer questions and gather feedback on the priority
registration policy and procedure.
Ms. Jeffries asked how soon this would come into effect. BM said that there would be a LONG
lead in time as it needs to be thoroughly tested as it is hoped this will replace the aging Rose and
Tuck program currently in use. This will not happen soon.BM explained that currently there is no
policy, just an oral history; now groups who want priority registration just apply. The Board
would have to grant someone/body the authority to evaluate these applications. This has not been
done at ECC before. Groups would now have to go through the process and supply reasons for
their request as detailed in the new procedure. They would also have to submit a new request
every five years – as per a suggestion from Dean Goldberg.
Mr. Wells asked if some groups would rank higher than others. BM said, yes, based on things like
grants. A Committee would decide on the rank order.
Ms. Taylor had a concern with AP VII #1, asking why extra- or co- curricular activities would
justify priority status over other groups. BM said that it was intended to open the door for groups
like athletes to apply. Ms. Taylor said she was still not clear on that justification. BM said that
athletes and the like say that they have these tasks and functions related to the college only as a
result of this activity. Ms. Taylor felt the phrasing was not accurate and asked if there would be
further discussion on the issue. BM said yes, it is still early in the process.
Ms. Jackson noted that if a group is denied priority status they have to wait two years to reapply
and wondered how that two year period had been arrived at. BM said that that was his idea so that
groups would not be constantly reapplying and would have a period to think the issues over.
Ms. McGinley asked for the rationale behind giving international students priority over local
students. BM said it was to cover the expense of recruitment and because of the visas M1 and
J1where the students have to be on full- time status. Ms. McGinley felt we should not be
recruiting if we did not have enough spots for California students, and noted that our local
students had loans to repay.
Mr. Key asked whether the guidelines mentioned in AP VII #4 had already been delineated. BM
said these were still being developed.
BM noted that in his opinion the most important area is AP VI#2 which attempts to limit students
playing the system, and tries to cut down on petitions.
NEW BUSINESS
Outstanding Faculty Award – Faculty Development Committee – Chris Gold (CG)
[see pp. 29-32 of packet] This is the first reading of this item. Please read this and send feedback
to CG.
Minimum Qualifications - Mathematics
[see pg.50 of packet] DV received input from Dr. Glucksman just before the Academic Senate
meeting that the Mathematics Department had not considered the proposal and did not have a
chance to support or oppose it. Dr. Glucksman suggested to DV that the proposal be pulled and
discussed at a Math Department meeting prior to review by the Academic Senate.
This would constitute the first reading.
This is a proposal to have California Community Colleges add one degree option to the
Mathematics faculty minimum qualifications (Astronomy degree)
DV noted that to change a statewide MQ, the easiest way is to have local Academic Senate
submit a proposal to the ASCCC (statewide senate)
DV said that although we have until September to submit changes, the next Senate meeting would
be after the September deadline and we would then have to wait 2 years for the next opportunity.
Any other suggestions are welcome.
AA/AS Degree Taskforce
[see pp. 47-48 of packet] Mr. Key noted that he and Dr. Rapp are co-chairs of the taskforce. Mr.
Key asked the senators to read the recommendations and please to forward any other
recommendations that might occur to them. This concerns the attainment of Associates degrees
and the need to increase the number of degrees awarded on this campus.
Curriculum Recommendation – Curriculum Committee – Lars Kjeseth (LK)
[see pg. 49 of packet]
LK suggested tabling the item for the next meeting, but gave a brief overview of the situation.
The Curriculum committee encounters many outlines where the textbook is not up to date (older
than 5 years) The Committee understands that not all textbooks need to be updated, but courses
are MUCH easier to articulate if the listed “required textbook” in the Course Outline of Record
(COR) is no more than 5 years old.
LK had outlined a proposal whereby instructors would be asked to list a current text and use their
classic texts as supplemental or required texts. Dr. Arce recommended that the Curriculum
committee be more flexible when reviewing textbooks, and have a more dynamic process, for
instance, have the Articulation Officer contact the relevant Divisions and get the course outline
updated. Dr. Gold pointed out that there could be more flexibility in thinking about texts. She
cited UCLA as having an optional textbook and using more outside readings.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
DV noted that the next agenda is very full and so he would be cancelling the Officer’s
reports.
 Basic Skills counseling presentation
 Program Viability, Intervention, and Discontinuance Policy & Procedures
 Program Review – annual update & 4 year cycle
 Senate effectiveness survey results
 MAYBE: Survey results from deans regarding thoughts on department chairs
 MAYBE: ARCC report data/summary
.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
The Academic Senate meeting was adjourned at 1:59pm
Cs/ecc2010