COLLEGE OF MARIN
ACADEMIC SENATE
MEETING MINUTES for JAN. 22, 2009
12:45 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
Student Service Building, Conference Rooms A & B
Senators Present: Derek Wilson, Erica Harkins, Sarah McKinnon, Blaze Woodlief, Arthur
Lutz, Robert Kennedy, Joe Mueller, Yolanda Bellisimo, Michael Dougan
Eric Dunmire
Senators Absent: Patrick Kelly , Meg Pasquel, Ron Gaiz, Radica Portello
Guests: Laurie Ordin, Paul Costello




Summary
Instructor Laurie Ordin presented a proposal to amend the Academic Senate
Constitution to elect members on a departmental basis. A survey measuring
faculty interest in that amendment will be sent out. Subsequent actions will
depend on the nature of the response.
The Senate is poised to grant conceptual approval to an Educational Master Plan
at its next meeting.
The Senate agreed to vote on an Integrated Planning Model at its next meeting.
Also, the Senate will vote on whether to approve General Education Student
Learning Outcomes.
Minutes
I. Approval and Adoption of the Agenda. Approved
II. Reading and Approval of the Minutes of Dec. 11, 2008. Approved.
III. Officers’ Reports
President:
 Provided in writing (attached)
Vice President:
 None
Treasurer:
 None
IV. Committee Reports
a. Curriculum

None
b. Academic Standards
 None
c. Community Education
 None
V. Consent Agenda
Becky Brown was appointed to serve as an SLO facilitator.
VI. Action Items
 None
VII. Discussion Items
a. A proposal to elect Academic Senators on a departmental basis:
Laurie Ordin submitted a proposal to amend the Academic Senate
Constitution to change the way in which Senators are elected, and the number to
serve on the Senate. Under her proposal, each department would elect one or
more Senators.
Senate President Bellisimo said the Senate would poll faculty members to
determine whether a majority support the proposed amendment. If so, she said, it
will be put to a formal vote. President Bellisimo said that second action would
require legal counsel, which would cost money but would protect against possible
lawsuits. That’s why she wanted to test the waters with a non-binding poll first.
She asked Ms. Ordin to present an unbiased rendering of the proposed
amendment and a written argument (not to exceed 300 words) on its behalf. She
said these will be submitted to faculty members, along with a similarly restricted
argument against the proposal that she will bring forward.
Senator Lutz contended that limiting the arguments to 300 words had no
constitutional basis. He made a motion, seconded by Senator Dunmire, to expand
the limit to 600 words. That will be voted upon at the next meeting.
Senator Lutz also moved that Ms. Ordin’s amendment be directly submitted to
faculty voters without taking a poll first. This motion died for lack of a second.
Senator Harkins noted that the proposed amendment included Senate
representation from the Emeritus College, even though it contains no faculty
members. She said the Emeritus College is an organization of students.
Senator McKinnon observed that the proposed amendment left out the noncredit faculty entirely, including the ESL Department.
b. Educational Master Plan
Senator Woodlief noted that the Educational Master Plan must go to the Board
of Trustees for approval at its Feb. 17 meeting. She said this is necessary to meet
pending WASC accreditation requirements. She said the broadly based plan will
cover a 10-year period, broken into three-year strategic plans for implementation.
Woodlief moved that the Senate vote to give conceptual approval to the plan at
its next meeting. Senator Wilson seconded the motion.
b. Integrated Planning Model
Senator Woodlief said this, too, is necessary for WASC approval, and needs to be in
the implementation cycle by the time of the next visit from the accreditation team.
Senator Harkins moved to vote on its approval at the next meeting. Senator Wilson
seconded the motion.
d. Wiki space for Student Learning Outcomes
Senator McKinnon earned a big round of applause for her slide presentation of a
Wiki Web site where all disciplines can go to discuss and tweak their SLOs.
Members can make changes within the site, which already includes 1078 classes.
e. General Education Student Learning Outcomes
Senator Wilson offered a motion to approve General Education SLOs at the
next meeting. Senator Woodlief seconded it.
Senator Lutz pointed out that teachers are not mandated to participate in the
SLO process, and wondered how we can meet WASC requirements using an entirely
voluntary process. Senator Woodlief responded that WASC does not expect 100percent participation, but is looking for a “critical mass” of participants and “now
we’re nowhere near there.”
While “we can’t, as a Senate, mandate that they do it,” Senator Bellisimo noted
that the Wiki program made the SLO process “fairly easy.”
Senator Harkins said Community Education faces a deadline of Feb. 7 to be included in
the Wiki program before it is presented to trustees.
VII. Public Requests to Address the Senate on Non-Agenda Items
 None
IX. Special Adjournment in honor of Carol Adair: 2 p.m.
For questions or information concerning the Academic Senate minutes, please
contact: Michael Dougan, michael.dougan@marin.edu, x7376
PRESIDENT’S REPORT
January 22, 2009
1.
Scholarship in Honor of Carol Adair
The officers of the Academic Senate are contributing to the scholarship fund set up in
honor of Carol Adair in the name of the Senate. If you wish to contribute as a senator,
please give your checks to Ron Gaiz. Of course, you can also choose to contribute in
your own name (instead of in the name of the Senate) in which case you can send a
check to the College of Marin Foundation designating that it is for Carol’s scholarship
fund.
2.
Program Review Calendar Missteps and Effects on Unit Allocation, or…Because
of a shoe the horse was lost
Because the data packets were six weeks late, program review deadlines were put off
until mid-November. This did not give the Program Review Committee enough time to
get the reviews reviewed, corrected and to committees by the end of last semester. As
a result, the Unit Allocation Sub-Committee of IPC was not able to prepare a review of
unit requests and priority rank requests in time for Fall 2009 scheduling. As a result,
during the holiday break Blaze and I talked with Nick Chang and asked that
administration use a roll-over from last fall to assign units, making exceptions in cases
where it was clear Fall 2008 allocations created a particular problem. Any problems with
unit allocations for Fall 2009 should be brought to the Senate president or vice president
and we will discuss this with IPC. Also, first and foremost, make sure you discuss your
unit allocations and any problems with your dean. Spring 2010 unit allocation will be
based on program reviews and we are in the process of creating a calendar for which
years’ reviews will be used to allocate units for which semesters from here on in.
3.
State Senate BSI Coordinator
The State Academic Senate is seeking a BSI Workshop Coordinator to organize the next
phase of BSI workshops. The Senate has put out a job description for this and I have
attached it for your information. It is a one-year released time position (I think) working
out of Sacramento. If you are interested in applying, let me know.
4.
SLO and WASC Self Assessment
Marty Hittelman, who is president of the California Federation of Teachers, sent a
letter to ACCJC in October of 2008 to ask that it amend two sections of Standards II and
III of the accreditation self-study. Hittelman and others think that the ACCJC/WASC
requirement that faculty evaluation include the creation of SLOs is a violation of
collective bargaining. Hittelman got a letter back from ACCJC and shared it with the
senates. I’ve attached a copy of the letter from ACCJC with this report.
Keep in mind that our Senate thought to get an MOU with the BOT expressly stating that
SLOs would not be used in evaluation and in my conversations with the president, she
continues to abide by the belief that SLOs should not be used in evaluation of faculty.
As I have mentioned before, I could imagine a U.S. History SLO that says students will
be able to evaluate the causes of the Civil War using specific events from the send-up to
the war as evidence of the validity of a particular cause for war. That’s a good SLO but if
you tell me you are going to use my success at seeing to it that students meet this
objective as a part of my evaluation, I’ll change the SLO to something like, “Students will
be able to identify the two sides fighting in the Civil War.” I can’t imagine a better way to
defeat the positive and excellent effects of SLOs than to use them in faculty evaluations.