COLLEGE OF MARIN
ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, November 15, 2007
12:45 – 2:00 pm
Student Service Building
Conference Rooms A & B
Senators Present: Carol Adair, Yolanda Bellisimo, Michael Dougan, Ron Gaiz, Erika Harkins,
Patrick Kelly , Arthur Lutz, Sara McKinnon, Meg Pasquel, Radica Portello, Blaze Woodlief,
Derek Wilson
Senators Absent:
Ingrid Schreck, Joe Mueller, Robert Kennedy,
Guests: John Sutherland, Hoa-Long Tam, Barbara David, Melody Creel, Waiswa Nkwanga,
Anita Martinez
Approval of Agenda & Minutes
 Motion made to approve the agenda
 Motion made to approve the minute as amended.
Officers’ Reports
The President’s Report: A written report was submitted.
V.P Report: No report.
Treasurer’s Report: No report.
Committees Reports
 Curriculum – The Curriculum Committee is writing a policy change on class size and will
bring the draft to the next Senate meeting. Senators suggested that the CC members take into
consideration safety, SLO’s and Best Practices.

Academic Standards – No report
 Community Education – Erika Harkins announced that Community Education is sponsoring
showings of art in the cafeteria and in the Emeritus offices. She invited all to come and view the
very professional work. Erika will write a notice for the Senate Newsletter.

Governance Committees
o Compressed Calendar – Sara McKinnon reported that, in 2008/09, in order to
make ourselves ready for the compressed calendar, the college is moving to
block scheduling. On Monday, a tentative schedule of starting times will be sent
to department chairs along with information on how block scheduling will work for
Fall 2008. Senators reminded the Calendar Committee that the actual schedule
deadline for Fall 2008 should still be January 2008. Sara will confirm this and
report to the Senate
Consent Agenda
 The ballot count was accepted. – Yolanda announced the results of the Senate’s faculty
referendum - a survey of faculty members as to whether they want the Senate to bring its
1
proposed full-time hiring priorities to the UPM for inclusion in the contract. The official vote was
counted on Friday, November 9. 121 ballots were returned. Two ballots were damaged or
illegal. Of 119 eligible ballots - 96 voted yes and 23 no, resulting in an 81% yes vote
Discussion
1. Letter to the UPM Executive Council The Senate discussed a letter written in response
to the UPM’s request for the Senate’s support in demanding that the administration
immediately hiring full time faculty. Yolanda will rewrite the draft.
2. Hiring Procedure Change Motion: Yolanda and Patrick will take the Academic
Senate’s “Hiring Criteria for Ranking Full Time Hiring Priorities”, along with the
referendum that supports it, to UPM Executive Council. They will request that UPM
include the Senate’s “Hiring Criteria” in bargaining.
Amendment: The Senate will reread the document and consider any
amendments at its next meeting.
3. Program Review: In order to meet WASC requirements, IPC will meet every week for the
rest of the semester. Yolanda will receive 9 units of release time (through the Senate) to
serve as Program Review Facilitator. Among other tasks, she will lead creating rubrics
for all committees that have jurisdiction program reviews especially in relation to
facilities, technology, faculty hires and curriculum. She will help to create Program
Review templates for the departments/disciplines/programs, and will aid departments in
the writing of their reviews. The college is hiring someone to help Melody with research.
Derek and Patrick are helping to create data packets to go out to each department chair.
4. Program Review Committee Motion: The Academic Senate will immediately create
a “Program Review Committee” charged with overseeing program review for all
academic programs and will insure that the duties and responsibilities of the
committee are a part of the policy and procedure.
Public Requests to Address the Senate on Non-Agenda Items
 John Sutherland read a letter to the Senate protesting the Senate’s discussion of the
English Department’s request. The letter is attached as an addendum.
 Anita Martinez requested to speak for the record in response to earlier remarks. Her written
statement is attached as an addendum.
Adjournment: 2:00 PM
2
Addendum A
John Sutherland
Our Elected Faculty Representatives,
On October 18, representatives from the English Department came to the Senate to ask
for support on an issue of collegial consultation. Our concern was the administration’s decisions
to cancel courses within the Department, to reorganize the English Instructional Specialist
Program, to reduce and soon to eliminate entirely IS support for upper level students and to
interfere with the determination of appropriate course content.
The item was agendized as “Sutherland et al” because I had requested that the
Department reps be allowed to speak to the Senate. At the meeting, the English Dept reps
spoke. Then Dean Snyder was given the floor. He passed out copies of a syllabus and mid term
exam from one of the courses he had chosen to cancel and he revealed confidential personnel
information regarding student complaints. At least one student was present at the meeting.
Others spoke, too: one Senator cited enrollment statistics; another cited Curriculum
Committee opinions. I’ve listened to a recording of the meeting, I’ve heard the reports from the
English Department representatives and I’ve spoken with one Senator present at the meeting.
All of these sources indicate that much of this discussion was improperly and inordinately
concentrated on one course and on one instructor.
One English Department representative characterized this concentration as
“inappropriate.” Another described it as an “attack.” A third said she felt “blindsided” by Dean
Snyder’s inclusion and by several Senators’ participation in the assault.
I understand that recently President Bellisimo cited the Brown Act in order to control
discussion and adopted a new policy that allowed only those agendized to speak. I understand
also that at the subsequent Senate meeting, Senator Lutz questioned the inclusion of Dean
Snyder’s comments—not only the content of Dean Snyder’s presentation (revealing confidential,
personnel information, passing out a mid term exam, etc.) but also his being allowed to speak
without being agendized. Finally I understand that President Bellisimo responded to Senator
Lutz’ inquiry by saying that since the agenda item was listed as “Sutherland et al,” it included
Dean Snyder.
What I do not understand is whom you think you are representing. You are elected
faculty representatives, NOT representatives of the administration. The Academic Senate is
elected to represent the faculty in academic and professional matters--NOT to sit in judgment of
colleagues or to subject them to public humiliation. For Senators, fellow faculty members,
elected representatives of the faculty, to allow and engage in an attack on a colleague at a
public meeting is disgraceful. Personal prejudices have no place at the Senate table.
Exams are sacrosanct and to expose them violates all academic ethics. I challenge you
to ask yourselves how you would have felt had your exams, had confidential information about
you or your class been revealed in a public setting.
That President Bellisimo allowed Dean Snyder to speak is not only contrary to her own
adoption of the Brown Act policy; it also violates the trust of the faculty who elected her.
“Sutherland et al” in no way refers to anyone beyond faculty members of the English
Department. The very idea that “Sutherland et al” includes the Dean is a travesty. As the
president of the representative faculty body, the AS President should have stopped Dean
Snyder’s attack the moment it started.
I request to have this statement included in the AS Minutes, November 15, 2007
John Sutherland, English Department
3
Addendum B
The Administration does NOT “blame” faculty. The Administration does see that we all share
responsibility for a successful response to accreditation recommendations, including the full
implementation of program review. Administration also recognizes that, under 10 + 1, faculty,
through the Academic Senate, bear primary authority and, hence, responsibility for program
review. Administration is prepared to work with and support faculty and the rest of the college
community in this regard
4