COLLEGE OF MARIN
ACADEMIC SENATE
MEETING MINUTES FOR March 12, 2009
Student Services Building, Conference Rooms A “& B
Senators Present: Yolanda Bellisimo, Michael Dougan, Ron Gaiz, Patrick
Kelly, Robert Kennedy, Arthur Lutz, Sara McKinnon, Joe Mueller, Meg
Pasquel, Radica Portello, Blaze Woodlief, Derek Wilson, JoEtta Scott, Eric
Dunmire, Erica Harkins
Senators Absent: None
Guests: Rinetta Early, Gina Auland
Minutes
I. Approval and Adoption of the Agenda. Approved.
II. Reading and Approval of the Minutes of March 5, 2009. Approved as
amended.
III. Officers’ Reports
President: Yolanda Bellisimo. Written report attached.
Vice President: No report.
IV. Committee Reports:
a) Curriculum Committee: Derek Wilson reported that the Fine and
Performing Arts faculty addressed the last meeting to discuss repeatability
procedures. The committee finished reviewing some 14 courses.
b) Governance Committees: Senate President Yolanda Bellisimo
proposed an audit on how much money is being spent on self-study and
WASC accountability programs. She said the Academic Senate needs to
be able to explain the financial burden of those responsibilities.
V. Action Items
a) To Approve Letter to UPM Regarding UPM Newsletter
Misstatements:
Senator Arthur Lutz read an extensive statement in opposition to the
motion (both the letter and his statement are attached). Action was
postponed until next week, after Senators Bellisimo and Michael Dougan
have had a chance to consider changes to the original letter.
Action Items
VI. Discussion
a) Revitalization and Discontinuance Procedure for Computer
Science: Senator Patrick Kelly said the classes suffer low
enrollment for several reasons, including scheduling. He said
moving more classes into the evening slot should bring significant
improvement. Other classes are outdated and need to be
eliminated, including courses in basic computing and Java
programming. Kelly said the department needs a fall-spring
alignment so that students can move through all needed
coursework in two years.
Senator Wilson said Java-type classes should be dropped in favor
of new classes in object-oriented programming, such as C++ and
iPhone apps.
.
Senator Kelly asked support from the Academic Senate for a
request to the college vice-president for more appropriate units.
He said this makes computer science one of the first courses
going into revitalization under new procedures adopted last year.
b) Multiple and Overlapping Enrollments: President Bellisimo
said a plan has been designed and vetted to define circumstances
under which it would be possible to enroll in two overlapping
credit classes. It will be placed on next week’s agenda as an
action item.
c) Textbook Costs Update: Senator Radica Portello proposed that
a link to sites selling inexpensive textbooks be placed on the COM
Web site. Discussion centered on issues such as the implications
of doing that vis-à-vis our contract with the student bookstore,
and various individual faculty proposals on ways to help students
save money on books. Senator Portello will look into the matter
more deeply and report back in two weeks.
d) Appeals Process for Cancelled Units: President Bellisimo said
the current written appeal process “needs to be more fleshed
out.” She will confer with Vice-President Wilson to incorporate
suggested corrections and take that to the IPC>
e) No Smoking Policy: Senator Kelly noted that meat-eating, like
smoking, is a cause of poor health, yet no move is afoot to make COM
into a meat-free campus. He argued that enforcing the current rules
against smoking within 25 feet of a public building would sufficiently
resolve the second-hand smoke threat.
The Senate will continue to take the measure of its constituency on
this issue, as per the request of the College Council.
VII: Public Request to Address the Senate on Non-Agenda Items
Gina Auland, who is a nursing student, made an articulate and
impassioned plea that COM construct its class schedule to better benefit transfer
students. The Senate responded with a round of applause.
Adjournment: 2:00 PM
For questions or information concerning the Academic Senate minutes,
please contact: michael Dougan, Michael.dougan@marin.edu, X7336.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1:
PRESIDENT’S REPORT
March 12, 2009
1.
Bird of Paradise
We had this beautiful took-care-of-itself Bird of Paradise plant between
Fusselman Hall and Dickson Hall that Tom Burke remembers being
planted by a long-since gone gardener 25+ years ago. I was keeping
an eye on it the past few months as the tractors got ever-closer. My
intention was to warn V-Anne before it got in harm’s way but I was a
week too late. The poor plant got backed over by a back hoe and
smunched. I emailed V-Anne and this started a string of emails with
Tom Burke, Bob Thompson, V-Anne and me. The gardeners at first
pronounced it dead but went back out for a second look and decided
they could save it. Enough of its leafy matter was still in tact and the
roots undisturbed so they trimmed it way back and will transplant it
next week. This situation prompted Bob to ask about other plant life
in the way of large equipment and could-care-less contractors. Bob
says the contractors had promised to be careful of our plant life but
apparently have forgotten. He and V-Anne are planning frequent
project walks and a plan sheet for contractors. They will be discussing
this with their staff and the contractors in more detail.
Bob and I also mentioned the rare trees along the side of Fusselman
Hall, including Joe Mueller’s favorite deciduous redwood tree. Frankly,
I think it’s homely but Joe assures me it’s rare.
2.
Innovations Conference
Derek and I will be going to a conference for community college
innovation in Reno this coming week. We are doing a presentation on
Monday evening and I will be driving back on Tuesday. Derek is
staying longer as there are several sessions he would like to attend.
The organization offers state of the art information and
demonstrations about course offerings, teaching strategies, classroom
technology, and advances in community college management. Our
session is on the Senate’s role in the design of our program review
process and a demonstration of the template.
3.
Policies and Procedures
Rinetta and I worked today with Kathleen Kirkpatrick, Jane Wright (our
Gold Book consultant), Bob B. and Nick Chang on several policies and
procedures that are 10 + 1. We will be bringing the procedure on
probation and the policy on grade change to the Senate next week.
Curriculum Committee will be asked to look at the procedure on
variable units, and two procedures on course repetition. Rinetta is
taking two other procedures to the Academic Standards Committee.
We are slowly working our way through Chapter 4 and beginning to
look at some of the 10 + 1 APs and BPs in Chapter 5. It’s tedious.
Attachment 2:
Proposed Action Item Letter:
In two out of the last three issues of the union newsletter, the Academic
Senate and its activities have been falsely represented. The purpose of this
letter is to set the record straight, and to ask UPM leadership to examine its
own motives in printing harmful fictions about an organization made up of
UPM members and working in service of the entire faculty.
The latest example is the most egregious. That’s the letter from a unit
member asking
Union Press Editor John Sutherland to “inquire of our attorney what legal
authority the Academic Senate possesses to create a ‘zero tolerance’
program regarding individual faculty and their participation in program
review.”
Curiously, the letter-writer was on IPC when the Academic Senate sent that
body an appendix to its Program Review Handbook that states: “Faculty
members involved in Program Review volunteer as participants and faculty
who choose not to participate shall not be penalized.”
So she is in a position to know that the only document protecting faculty
members from being forced to write program reviews comes from the
Academic Senate.
Her letter falsely implies just the opposite, and readers of the UPM newsletter
might ask themselves why. (Our Senate president has called for zero
tolerance for those – including administrators and trustees -- who don’t use
IPC-mandated procedures for handling program review. That’s a different
matter.)
Two newsletters back, we find another false claim: Readers were informed of
“a recent incident when the Academic Senate proposed to the Trustees a
program revitalization/reduction policy, (but) the board rejected it and
implemented one of their own choosing.”
That never happened. It’s a made-up story..
The Trustees adopted the Academic Senate’s revitalization/reduction policy
word- for-word. It is the law of the land at COM today. (We did object when
the board added a sentence reiterating a state law that nobody disputes. “We
felt it was a statement of the obvious and did not need to be in the policy,”
noted Senate President Yolanda Bellisimo.)
So let’s be clear: The board did nothing to amend the wording, content or
impact of the Senate’s revitalization/discontinuance policy. The claim that
trustees “rejected it” and “implemented one of their own choosing” is bogus.
A quick call to any Senate officer could have saved UPM the embarrassment
of being publicly corrected on potentially damaging and easily avoided errors
in the Union Press. It is vitally important that UPM members are able to
believe the words of their elected leadership. The reckless publication of
these mean-spirited hoaxes has an opposite affect.
Attachment 3:
Senator Lutz’ Response to Proposed UPM Letter
I support Michael’s right to send a letter to the Union registering his
disagreement and dissatisfaction with what was printed in the UPM
Newsletter, however, I think it would be a mistake for our Academic Senate
to send this as an official letter, because the allegations that Michael makes
in his letter are unfounded and inaccurate.
Michael raises two issues in his letter where he says the UPM Newsletter
misrepresented the facts and printed ‘falsehoods’ about the Academic
Senate.
One of these is a statement in the December UPM Newsletter concerning the
college’s revitalization and discontinuance policy. The Newsletter statement
reads as follows:
…[there was] “a recent instance when the Academic Senate proposed
to the Board of Trustees a program revitalization and discontinuance
policy, (but) the board rejected it and implemented one of their own
choosing.”
Regarding this matter, Michael writes: “that ‘incident’ never happened.”
“The Trustees adopted the Academic Senate’s
revitalization/discontinuance policy ‘word for word’.” “The Board
did nothing to alter the wording, content or impact of the Senate’s
revitalization/discontinuance policy.” “The claim that they rejected
it…is bogus.”
Michael is not correct. The claim is not bogus. If he had spoken with Senate
President Bellisimo he would have discovered that this incident did happen.
The Board did reject the Senate’s version of the discontinuance policy. They
altered it by adding language that we had not approved of or submitted to
them. They changed the content and the impact of our policy.
The history of this matter is as follows:
In November 2007, WASC informed the District that COM needed to develop
a Discontinuance policy in order to qualify for accreditation. Because AB
1725 grants this prerogative to the faculty, the Board of Trustees invited our
Senate to develop this policy. Our Senate produced three different versions
which we sent out to our faculty, in a referendum, one of which they were to
approve. The faculty voted for one, and our Senate ratified the vote and
adopted the discontinuance policy that the faculty selected, and we sent this
policy to the Board of Trustees for adoption.
When the Board received our Discontinuance policy, they refused to accept it
as presented. They reintroduced language that we had voted to delete and
they added language that had not been reviewed by our Senate and that had
not gone through the governance procedure.
When our Senate discovered what the Board had done, we directed President
Bellisimo to protest these actions. On March 18th Yolanda appeared before
the Board to protest and question the Board’s revisions. She also wrote to
Board President Hayashino protesting the inclusion of wording that was not
presented or approved by our Senate. Her letter (in part) read:
“Our full faculty was invited to vote on the referendum that brought
this policy to the Board.”… but “language was presented that had
not been introduced, addressed or reviewed by the Senate and did
not follow the appropriate procedure…
Contrary to what Senator Dougan states in his letter, this incident DID
occur. Contrary to what he wrote, the Board did not accept our Senate’s
policy ‘word for word.’ They rejected what we had submitted and replaced it
with a document which included added wording, wording of which we were
not aware and wording which we had not approved. What occurred was
just as it was reported in our December ’08 UPM Newsletter.
As further evidence that this incident occurred as the UPM Newsletter had
reported, there is a letter from Board President Hayashino to President
Bellisimo where she writes,
“Policies recommended by the Academic Senate were approved by
the Board excepting BP 4021 [the discontinuance policy].
…Unfortunately, the modification to that policy was necessary .. the
Board had no choice but to insert specific language regarding the
Board’s legal authority.” “In addition, the Board modified paragraph
2 of the Discontinuance policy …to ensure that all student concerns
would be given … considerations.” “I trust this clarifies our action
and the necessity to modify the policy…”
You may agree that the Board of Trustees had the right to reject and/or alter
the policy which our Senate submitted. However, what the UPM Newsletter
reported in December was correct and what Senator Dougan wrote was not
correct. The Discontinuance Policy that is currently on the books, is not the
one that our faculty voted for and that our Senate adopted and sent to the
Board.
The second matter in Michael Dougan’s letter pertains to a letter-to-theeditor written by faculty member Maula Allen, to the Union Newsletter in
which she asks Newsletter editor John Sutherland, “can you inquire of our
attorney what legal authority the Academic Senate President
possesses to create a “zero tolerance” program regarding individual
faculty and their participation in program review.”
Senator Dougan says that printing this letter is “most egregious” because
“this implies that the Senate WANTS to create a zero tolerance
program, which, [he says] it does not.”
The reason that printing Maula Allen’s letter was appropriate is because of a
statement that President Bellisimo made to the Board of Trustees at their
January 20, 2009 meeting, She stated, “I want to review for you some
Academic Senate “to dos” for the coming 18 weeks” “Our goal is to
reach the point where we have zero tolerance for circumventing the
process,” (in Program Review and governance) “whether by faculty,
staff, administrators or the Board.” [underline mine]
This statement to the Board by our Senate President in her official capacity
as Senate President, certainly suggests that our Senate might be planning to
create a “zero tolerance” policy for faculty who are unwilling to participate in
Program Review. And that’s the question that Maula Allen asked.
She wanted to know who gave president Bellisimo the authority to tell the
Board of Trustees that our Senate will be seeking a “zero-tolerance” policy
for faculty when such a policy is contrary to the stated policy of our Academic
Senate. Our Senate’s policy has been restated many times. Nonparticipation in program review shall not be used punitively against faculty.
The May, 2007 MOU between the Academic Senate and the Board of Trustees
clearly affirms this Senate policy. It states: “Faculty members involved in
Program Review, volunteer as participants and faculty who choose
not to participate shall not be penalized.”
Given all the above, it’s understandable why Maula Allen would seek
clarification regarding President Bellisimo’s “goal” to seek a “zero-tolerance”
policy for faculty. The editor of the UPM newsletter certainly had ample
reason and ample justification to print her letter.
In conclusion, I believe there was nothing false, fictitious, reckless or
irresponsible in what the UPM Newsletter reported on these matters. It’s
unfortunate that Senator Dougan didn’t use his journalistic fact-finding skills
before he made these allegations. A quick call to any Senate officer would
have saved him from these errors. I think it would be unwise and
embarrassing to the credibility of our Senate if we voted to send Senator
Dougan’s letter as an official correspondence from the Academic Senate.
Arthur Lutz