COLLEGE OF MARIN
ACADEMIC SENATE
Minutes: April 30, 2009
12:45 p.m. – 2:02 p.m.
Student Service Building, Conference Rooms A & B
Senators Present: : Michael Dougan, Sara McKinnon, Arthur Lutz, JoEtta Scott,
Radica Portello, Ron Gaiz, Joe Mueller, Yolanda Bellisimo, Erika Harkins, Blaze
Woodlief, Meg Pasqual, Derek Wilson
Senators Absent: Patrick Kelly, Erik Dunmire, Robert Kennedy,
Guests Rinetta Early, Chris Schultz, John Sutherland
I. Approval and Adoption of the Agenda. Approved
II. Reading and Approval of the Minutes of April 9, 2009. Approved.
III. Officers’ Reports:
President (Yolanda Bellisimo): Written (attached).
IV. Committee Reports
Curriculum (Sara McKinnon): A few courses have been approved. A list of noncredit courses that are approved or in the process of approval is available.
Governance Committees:
Budget (Derek Wilson): Written report is attached. There is still no communication in terms
of the budget numbers – just the information that we’re in a “deficit spending” habit and have
some projected numbers. Although there is an issue about how to fund new requests from IEP
requests and Program Review, the committee still not does not have enough specific information
about the budget to make recommendations. The committee does NOT have a copy of the budget
for real. Co-chair Al Harrison says that the Budget committee should only deal with nondiscretionary funds (which does NOT match the charge of the committee based on Governance).
We next meet on Tuesday. Senator Bellisimo will write a letter for next week to go on n record
about the deficiencies in budget committee. It will be presented as an official senate document.
V. Consent Agenda: No items. The matter of retiree’s gifts will be placed on next
week’s agenda.
VI. Action Items: None
VII. Discussion
a) Merger of English, Basic Skills Labs (John Sutherland): A proposal has been
made to move the English writing lab in LC 110 into LC 120 where Media
Center computer lab is now. It’s being called a “co-location,” not a “merger.”
The Administration is in favor of it. Many faculty and staff have a range of
concerns about how this could work, ranging from whether it’s a good idea to
whether it would impact workload for faculty. No plan is in place now.
Supporters want it for convenience of students and possibly to address the
transition between English 92 and English 98. But the action being taken with no
clear plan and questionable reasoning, and in spite of a Program Review that do
not recommend this move. A review of the IS program and alignment project is
already happening and that could impact lab as well, but it’s not completed yet.
We need to make data-driven decisions.
Senator Pasqual said that physical moves that don’t impact the program are an
administrative prerogative, but that they’re not just doing it, they want our buy-in and
they vaguely said they have other changes in mind. If they want more than just
physical move, it needs to go through Program Review and not do an end-run.
Senator Wilson asked why we need to do this now when we have all this
modernization going on? Why not wait and not spend the money on this?
Senator Gaiz said we need to support Program Review.
Senator Bellisimo said Program Review needs to explore the student success issue
and to create interventions, and assess if it worked, not to start with intervention first.
We need a deeper understanding before intervening.
John Sutherland and Senator Pasqual will bring a letter on the issue next week for
presentation on the consent calendar.
It was suggested that we need to revisit the charge of the facilities committee. We
ought to be looking at how relocations, even temporary ones, can impact programs.
They need faculty input.
This question was raised: Is there another motive for moving labs? Perhaps to save
money eventually? We need to address it through Program Review.
b) Inventory of Outdated COR: Curriculum Committee Chair Chris Schultz began
by acknowledging all of the individuals who have worked on curriculum issues
this school year. He said there is a good likelihood the last handful of courses will
be completed over the next two weeks, although a boatload of courses have not
been returned, and have been revisited once or twice.
A year ago the Academic Senate sent a letter to the faculty listing courses over 20
years old. He wants to send lists to departments, where chairs will check off
courses and delete, deactivate or revise them as appropriate. These must be in
committee’s hands by September 1. Most of them haven’t been taught in long
time.
The goal is to have an on-line template that course listings no older than 6 years
and can be easily updated. The current letter addresses 20-year-old listings, and at
the end of the year 10-year-old listings will be the focus.
c) Class Hours Required per Course (Wilson): Deferred to next week.
d)
Smoking Policy Campus-Wide Survey Results (Bellisimo): The survey
was done by Bernie Blackmans office. It was a fairly random sampling of
students and employees. The most popular choice was that designated nosmoking areas be initiated and the policy enforced, though many respondents
expressed concern that no enforcement would be forthcoming. It is believed that a
no-smoking policy that forced smokers off of the campus would create edge-ofcampus litter problems in Kentfield, and possible fire hazards at the Indian Valley
campus.
Senator Mueller asked why the current policy, which restricts smokers to
prescribed distances from buildings, is not enforced. What’s the penalty for
violation? He suggested that we ask the enforcers – the campus police – what
would work best.
Senator Lutz noted that while students and classified staff could be restricted
in their smoking locations, faculty members could not be so-restricted because of
the UPM contract’s Article 24. Arthur: could enforce on students and staff, but
not on faculty, contractual issue, article 24 defines faculty issues as far as
smoking issues….
Senator Harkins said she had originally supported designated smoking areas, but
now had changed her mind and favored a complete, and enforced, campus smoking
ban.
Senator Bellisimo said she will take questions about enforcement, and why the current
ban doesn’t work, back to the College Council.
e) MOU on Program Review – Revisited (Yolanda Bellisimo): The Academic
Senate passed the MOU last year and forwarded it to UPM for a response. They
said the MOU should be passed, and then they would negotiate whatever needs to
be negotiated. They didn’t want to tell us what they thought in advance. It is
important for protection of the faculty that we have an MOU in place for Program
Reviews. She would like the Senate to consider sending this forward to the
Administration without any information from UPM’s executive council. We will
send out the version we passed last year. It will be placed on next week’s action
calendar.
IX: Adjournment: 2:02 PM
For questions or information concerning the Academic Senate minutes, please
contact: Michael Dougan, michael.dougan@marin.edu, X7336
Attachments
PRESIDENT’S REPORT
April30, 2009
1.
Ballots
I have been fighting a case of the flu all week – nothing to do with swine or Mexico I’m
sure – so I likely missed a lot of meetings. I did grade exams – stacks of them and I got
the ballot out. Blaze can report on the Self Study steering committee meeting since she
was there more than I was.
2.
Pat Siriani Highlighted in the IJ
Our American Sign Language teacher, Pat Siriani, was featured in the IJ on Tuesday
April 28th in an article by Beth Ashley. This is excellent, positive attention for COM and
especially for our faculty. Congratulations to Pat for the wonderful courses she offers.
3.
Kathy Freschi’s Cavalierato Award
Kathryn Freschi was nominated by club Cristofo Colombo for the prestigious Cavalierato
award given out by the Italian Consulate in San Francisco. Congratulations to Kathy for
this honor.
Budget Committee Report/Derek Wilson
The Budget Committee met on April 28th, which was chaired by Co-chair Al Harrison. The agenda reflects the main
objective to begin review of IPC recommendations and priorities. The following materials were distributed to
members:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The Budget Committee Agenda for 4/28/2009
The draft minutes from the last meeting, 4/7/2009
Copy of California Assembly Bill: AB 551, Community colleges: property tax revenues
Budget Analysis & Update (2 pages)
Budget Analysis report, that was distributed to the board (24 pgs. total)
IPC recommendations for:
a. Resource Allocation Request (RAR) forms from all managers
b. New Instructional Equipment requests
c. New Classified Staff requests
d. New Instructional Supply requests
e. New Supply requests
7.
Budget Committee binder of all Resource Allocation Requests
The agenda was amended and approved to add the Computer Replacement Plan from the Technology Committee
and IPC as a discussion item with consent by members present. The minutes were approved without amendments.
From 12:40 until 1:10, Mr. Harrison presented AB 551 and the possible implications of revenue reductions for COM
and other community colleges. He engaged members with questions and discussion. (Note: this item was not on the
agenda, nor was it proposed to add it to the agenda). D. Wilson twice raised the point that this topic was only
speculation at this point and should not be addressed at this meeting.
The Budget Analysis (2 pg. doc) was distributed and briefly discussed; A. Harrison cited that the board was
displeased with the history of “deficit spending” at COM:
 2007-08 (-$851,398)
 2008-09 (-$1,249,454) Budget
 2008-09 (-$441,792) Projected final deficit
 2009-10 (-$17,000)
The 2009-10 number was derived from an estimate of Marin County revenues of $45,321,000 less COM base
expenses of $45,338,000 (derived from an assumption of similar expenses to 2008-09). To which 3 committee
members responded with “It appears no new requests can be funded.” A. Harrison stated, some discretionary monies
may be available to backfill budget shortfalls and to support the Budget Committee’s priorities. As an example,
money is allocated/reserved for positions that are never filled. Member B. Borenstein inquired as to what happens
with those funds at the end of the fiscal cycle since that cannot be rolled over? Harrison replied, non-expensed funds
are put into the college reserves.
The Budget Analysis (24 pg. doc) was distributed to all members present. From this various discussions took place
regarding expenses and the changes from year to year (i.e. the 300% increase in unemployment insurance from
2007-08 to 2008-09).
The IPC memo and recommendations were distributed. This is comprised of new requests only, as faculty and
managers were told that existing area budgets would not be reduced. When members inquired as to why bother to
review when there no additional funds available, A. Harrison cited the approximate $3,250,000 of non-discretionary
funds the Budget Committee could allocate. D. Wilson asked Harrison from which page and/or document the $3M
was cited. Harrison had his “working document” that contained that balance. D. Wilson requested copies al the
current 2008-09 budget by area/category (i.e. total non-filled positions, unused supply accounts, etc.), the working
document from which Harrison referenced, and the forecast budget numbers for 2009-10. Mr. Harrison responded
by berating Co-chair Wilson and exclaiming “Do not address me that way…You are not my boss…I am only the
messenger…” etc.
In conclusion, to date the Budget Committee only has the 2008-09 Budget document from August 2008, from which
to make their determinations about planning and spending for the next College of Marin budget cycle that begins in
62 days.