Cosumnes River College
Academic Senate
Regular Meeting
May 9, 2008
Draft Minutes
Present: Michelle Barkley, Tamyra Carmona, Constance Carter, Balbina Chaderjian, Marjorie Duffy,
Rubina Gulati, Colette Harris, Lily Kun, Darlene Mathias, Maureen Moore, Maha Myren, Jamey Nye, Sue
Palm, Travis Parker, Dana Wassmer, Debra Welkley, Margaret Woodcock
Excused: Gary Martin
Guests: Marybeth Buechner, Steven Coughran, Efrain Lopez, Roger Patching, Katherine Mayo, Jim West,
Jason Newman, Debra Sharkey, Linda Sneed, Thomasina Turner, Chuck Van Patten,
Announcements
Thursday May 15 Highest Office Citizen meeting 6 p.m. at Crest Theatre, to help kids try to get
citizenship. Tickets are $40 dollars, but ours would be free if we call Travis.
Reona will no longer serve on hiring committee for Associate Vice Chancellor. We need another faculty
person to step in with interviews on the 19th. Balbina Chaderjian will serve- with the Senate’s thanks.
Action Items
Agenda approved with no changes.
Minutes approved with no changes.
Retirement Resolution for Patricia Wall was presented and read by Jamey Nye. Rules were suspended
requiring a second read to move it directly to a vote. Vote was held with unanimous in favor of
accepting with one minor edit.
Updates
Basic Skills update – Jamey Nye
Some money has been carried over. They will get a clear number from Celia, so faculty can itemize
everything that has been approved through basic skills task force. The faculty will be in charge of
approving the items that are on the budget. It will be opened to all faculty in a formal way, although it
has been open in the past, it is still rather heavy with English and Math. Those who choose to serve on
Basic Skills committee will be able to use this as their shared governance obligation. Jamey wants
representation from all faculty. Another new committee will most likely be Campus Sustainability
Committee, which is still in the process of being defined fully.
CRC Foundation Fundraiser – Jamey Nye
Hopes to establish the walk-a-thon, bike-a-thon, jog-a-thon fundraiser for the foundation. Faculty will
do their exercise during October. Pedometers will be given to faculty who sign up to track their miles.
Half of money raised will go to Foundation and half will go to the Alpha Academy (Parker).
Shared Governance Reports from Chairs of all committees will be shared during the Fall Retreat so we
don’t have to rush through it.
Mission Statement – transfer plays a very minor role represented by only one word, and should be
bolstered so it is more visible, and that the whole mission statement doesn’t sound quite as “remedial”
education offered. Positive comments given about the additions about environmental responsibility.
Please read and give any input by Wednesday to Jamey.
Discussion
District Academic Calendar proposal. Comments included: students who study all along should not be
in a bind and “cramming”. Option one is preferred by some. We have three flex days each year, and it
could be put in the middle of the semester to push things back. Question was raised as to whether this
affects graduation? Graduation would probably have to be put on Thursday. How about the issue of
MW classes being put to MWF classes? May not be related, but please give feedback to Ruth.
Outcomes Assessment Task Force – Dana Wassmer
Latest version of SLO forms was shared. They have been reworking the wording, but it is still in draft
form. Senate was asked to review and approve for a pilot in the fall. It would be used during the
morning session of the convocation. Concern was raised that the form might be too cumbersome, and
might be divided up into groups based on who responsible. During convocation it will be role played,
and feedback is really sought from faculty. Others felt that all the information was necessary and faculty
need to take ownership of keeping our accreditation. Vote was passed unanimously to accept it.
Administrative Grade Change Resolution – Chuck Van Patten
Resolution was presented calling for an investigation into Administrative Grade Changes here at CRC. It
was asked that we suspend the second read rule and pass the resolution. According to the Union, there
has been an administrative grade change but resolution is not an accusation, just an investigation, more
like an audit. Time line is an important part to know. It has happened here, but how frequently.
Resolutions are weighty things, and question was raised as to whether it could do without a full
resolution. The tone of this resolution is seen as aggressive by some. Can wording be changed? Grades
are definitely the purview of the faculty. Vote was called to suspend the rules and move to suspend
passed. Edits and strikes were made to the resolution. Vote was 10 aye, 0 against, and 6 abstentions.
Motion passed.
VPI Selection Process
Jamey was invited to be at second level interviews, an unprecedented move in the district. Impressions
groups were held, with direction by consensus. In the time between the impressions groups and the VPI
announcement, one of the four finalists withdrew.
A question was asked about how much weight was given to faculty’s opinion from the impressions
group? On second level interviews a lot of feedback was given by Jamey, and Francisco received that as
well as the results of the impression group. When multiple people said something with the same theme,
Jamey shared this with Francisco, but not when just one or two shared. Francisco did get the message,
and after that meeting Jamey felt that faculty had been heard. After the withdrawal of the candidate
preferred by faculty, faculty wanted to reopen the position and go back out. This was formally
presented to Francisco who listened but took a different course of action.
The initial sending forward of four faculty says that any of them would be a viable VPI. If faculty cannot
send more than three forward that would be when the process says that we go back out. Since three
faculty members were on the interview committee, they already had a chance to weigh in on the
selection. A question was raised about why Francisco didn’t go with the second choice. Concern was
raised that some of the faculty comments were poisonous toward the internal candidates, making it a
very unpleasant experience. Results of the impressions group may have colored the outcome. It was
good that faculty came to consensus, and that people could voice their concerns, but some comments
were made on behalf of people that carried a lot of weight, and which didn’t really represent their
opinion. A suggestion was made that in the future folks should speak for themselves, not for a group.
Generalized statements should perhaps not be allowed as well because they also carried a lot of weight.
A comment was made that the vigor and harshness with which certain comments were made is possibly
a manifestation of faculty treatment by administration.
Confidentiality was not honored by faculty in this process, which is a clear violation. Ellen and Kathy are
valued members of our campus, and should be treated as such. Even so, we need to be able to be open
and honest. Individuals were encouraged to send an e-mail to Francisco with opinions. Faculty may
have sent different e-mail if they had known about the withdrawal.
What is reasonable to expect of Francisco? He did listen to faculty input and acted on that input in the
beginning and middle of this hiring process. He did, however, choose a different course of action at the
end of the process. The impression groups are not part of the legal hiring process, and as such, are not
necessarily weighted the same as the hiring committee.
It is problematic that four people were sent forward if faculty felt three were not adequate. Hiring is a
tough job, but the future of the institution depends on this being done well. It was proposed that we
send as a faculty a letter of concern. A letter of concern (drafted by faculty) could state appreciation for
inclusion in the process but also express concern that Francisco diverged from the faculty’s opinion
about going out again. A benefit to this is if something like this comes up again we have this on record.
Impressions group showed that we had a clear choice. A comment was made that our President selected
a person that was off our radar, seemingly choosing expediency over right. We need to be able to come
together. Is it possible for future situations like this that the President reconvenes a group of concerned
faculty and gathers initial input? CRC faculty has seemingly acquiesced to managerial power that is
more of a perception than a reality. A letter of concern will be drafted. Faculty are invited to send
comments to Jamey. The Senate and Union will both be on the letter.
Adjournment
Next Meeting of the Senate – Fall Retreat – time and place TBA