Approved Minutes
Sacramento City College
Academic Senate
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
President: Connie Zuercher
Vice-President: Greg Rose
Secretary: Troy Myers
Senators: Lorna Reach, Dana Armstrong, Angelia Jovanovic, Debbie Loomis, Rick
Woodmansee, Lynne Giovannetti, Ginni May, Demborah Gambrell, Riad Bahhur, Barbara
Toupadakis, Michelle Smith, Carrie Marks, Carolyn Pickrel, Carolyn Koloski, Chris Daubert,
Randy Rosenberger, Deskaheh Bomberry, Andrew Jones, Sue Carriere, Kim Beyrer, Lori Petite,
Susan Griffin, Norman Lorenz, John Herlihy, Adrian Chevraux-Fitzhugh, Dena Chubbic, Lonnie
Larson, Simeon Okoroike, Amy Zannakis.
Guests: Angela Miller, Senator ASG; Elohim Cofield, ASG.
Call to Order: 12:01 by Connie
Approval of Minutes: minutes from 10-19 and 10-26 approved by consensus
Announcements: voting results from the hiring presentations have been distributed. Mary will
share this list with the Deans tomorrow. In Connie’s experience, administrative changes to the
hiring priorities are likely to be small and not dramatic. Sometimes there are factors which
influence administrative decisions which the Senate does not know during presentations. Also, a
reminder that November 11-13 the State Academic Senate is holding Fall Plenary in Anaheim.
Ginni, Troy, and Connie will be attending. The resolutions for Plenary may be viewed at
asccc.org by clicking on “Resolutions.” Greg reminded us all to check the resolutions and see if
any affect our discipline and relay any feedback or impressions to Connie.
OLD BUSINESS
Senate Seats
C. Zuercher
Connie reminded us that there are still open Senate seats: one adjunct seat in Advanced Tech,
two adjunct seats in Business; one in Behavioral and Social Science; two in FHA; one in
Science and Allied Health; and one full time seat in Humanities and Fine Arts. If any faculty
member expresses interest, please have that person send Connie an email for her to bring that
person’s name to the Senate for approval.
NEW BUSINESS
Faculty Hiring Profile/Process Discussion
C. Zuercher
We have just completed the faculty hiring process. Connie requested an open discussion on
process. Someone asked, why only one minute for each presentation? Connie responded that
that rule came from a time when there were more positions; it also used to be that questions were
not allowed after the presentation and time is now provided for that. The problem with
changing the current process back now is that it would involve changes to our constitution; if
more positions become available in the future, we would have to change the policy again. Greg
suggested we see how many positions we get in the next round and then make a decision.
Connie wonders if we would have enough time between the announcements of positions and the
hiring presentations to make the change. Some Senators noted the packets provide a lot of
information and that more time for presentation might not help. The general consensus of the
Senate was that things are fine as they are now.
A concern was raised from Counseling about the hiring profile form. Librarians and Tech people
feel this form does not work as well for them because the form is meant for teaching faculty. No
one was here to speak directly to the issues raised and Connie said she would like to hear the
concerns first hand. One Senator did note that the criteria she uses to rank instructional faculty is
not the same as what she uses to rank librarians and counselors. Connie will bring us an example
of the old form and we will hold this discussion on a future agenda. A counselor who was
present did say she felt that the counseling hiring form was filled out sparsely because the criteria
on the form favors teaching positions. Another counselor noted it is hard to tell from the form
how many counselors we have compared to faculty in a department on the current form. A
subcommittee was formed to examine the issue; the volunteers were: Angelia J., Susan G., Greg
R., Lori P., and Sue C. Jory and Kathy are also interested. Greg agreed to chair the
subcommittee.
Facilities Master Plan
B. Martinelli
Bob provided an overview of the new update to the SCC facilities master plan; anyone can view
the master plan online. The original plan was developed in 03-4 after the first bond measure.
Measure M passed in 08 and so the master plan has been updated. Many projects were already
planned before M was even passed. The college is using SKW Architects because of their
institutional memory. How much growth will we have in the future? Bob discussed “eligible
square feet,” which is determined using a State formula and then allocated to individual colleges
by each district. SCC is eligible for 108K new space; because of acreage limitation, 25K will be
devoted to SCC’s main campus, and 78K to centers. Several substantial projects are planned: the
last temporary building will be removed and several buildings added or expanded; Hughes
stadium will be modernized; there will be a new Student Services building, which will be16,000
square feet; Rodda Hall North 3rd floor will be expanded; Lusk, Auditorium, and the West Sac
Center all will see expansion;. Mohr and Lillard Hall Complex will see long term changes, also,
more café space, though how the café is expanded is still being discussed. All our current
projects are based on local bond funding; we will pursue state bond projects later because local
bond funds are more stable currently. A question was asked about providing more student social
space. Bob responded that there are some projects in place to provide some additional student
space. Student social space is not a bond level project, but the college will take suggestions.
Someone asked about pedestrian traffic in the bookstore lot? Bob says there is no easy answer;
there are fences up and signs and people continue to walk through the lot. Also, there are plans to
put a walkway from Curtis Park to our campus and that provides some security concerns. The
Senate wants Bob to come back for further questions; he agreed to do so. Conversations about
the Facilities Master Plan should be occurring in the divisions and relayed through the Deans.
Addressing Concerns of Cheating
L. Giovannetti /E. Ader
A small group is meeting on campus to discuss cheating. A cheating test was sent to all Senators,
and a brochure/handout was provided on the Student Standards of Conduct. The group has
wondered what is the best way to get information to students about cheating and the code of
conduct. Elaine has created a small handout of resources, and she is asking for feedback as to
what would work best for us in our classes. Should we have a student workshop on cheating and
plagiarism? Sometimes interpretations of cheating and plagiarism are not uniform; what is the
best way to educate our students? Someone asked if the information will be made available in
other languages? Not yet, but it is online; Elaine will talk to the PIO about the possibility. What
about the phrase “academic honesty;” someone asked if the tone of the brochure does not make it
appear to be a policing document? Some felt the standard of conduct folder read like a policing
document and all the language was negative. Another Senator felt such black and white language
is helpful. Someone noted that different cultures have different understandings of what
constitutes cheating. Another said the language should be clear; how can copying off someone
else’s paper be a cultural issue? Elaine wondered if we want to use the cheating test for students?
In Art, someone noted, copying is part of the artistic process. Another Senator responded to the
issue of cultural differences: does any culture not have ethics, or an understanding of cheating?
One example was given in response: some students think it’s okay to take material from an
outside source and not cite it. Someone else wondered if we should create a list of cultural
differences which relate to cheating to help us relate to students from diverse backgrounds.
Someone else felt attaching the entire student code to a syllabus might be a bit much, but the
plagiarism and cheating pieces might be useful attached to a syllabus. Elaine will make sure the
form goes out in PDF so we can borrow at will. Connie reminded us that Elaine would like us to
take the academic conduct form out to our divisions and get feedback. This issue will again be on
the November 16th agenda.
Connie openly thanked Elaine for helping us with the hiring prioritization process.
Proposal to Edit Curriculum Comm. Charge
G. May
We were all sent a proposal from the curriculum committee to edit their charge. Ginni noted that
the curriculum committee discovered it was not an official standing committee, nor did it have a
clear charge. They are requesting changes to the second paragraph of their current charge to
amend these issues. We are being asked to approve the change; the change makes it clear that
Curriculum is a standing committee attached to the Academic Senate. Should Curriculum be
listed elsewhere, not with the other standing committees? There is an administrative co-chair but
the meetings are led by faculty. One Senator noted that listing Curriculum with the standing
committees might help new faculty know it is a place for service. A motion was made to accept
the new language Ginni presented; Greg noted this is a first reading, and if we wish to pass it we
must vote to suspend the rule and allow a motion at the first reading. It was moved to suspend
rule; passed, unanimous, with three abstentions. It was moved again to add the new language;
motion passed with two abstentions.
CCSSE Results
M. Buechner
Marybeth made herself available to any faculty who would like information gathered from the
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSSE). She noted that “engagement”
does not mean the students are happy, and they love us. The definition of “engagement” here is
to what degree are the students actively engaged in their education. An engaged student is the
opposite of a passive student. Key points: about 1000 students took the survey: most spend 1 to
10 hours a week studying; many students do believe they are working hard in school; 16 percent
spend 30 or more hours a week caring for dependents; over a quarter spend at least an hour a day
commuting; we see the number of students working has gone down, but the number of students
seeking work has gone up; student perceive memorizing and critical skills as equally
emphasized; students do feel supported academically but not non academically; support for non
academic responsibilities seems low. Marybeth will bring this report to our areas/departments if
there is interest.
Meeting adjourned: 1:03 by Connie.
NEXT MEETING:
November 16, 2010
To place items on future agendas, please call x2150