Approved Minutes
Sacramento City College
Academic Senate
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
President: Connie Zuercher
Vice-President: Greg Rose
Secretary: Troy Myers
Senators: Carrie Marks, Angelia Jovanovic, Chris Daubert, Michelle Smith, Debbie
Loomis, Barbara Toupadakis, Jon Hanson, Erica Wagner, Sue Hussey, Maha Edlbi,
Shannon Culmo, Arthur Hernandez, Sue Carriere, Linda Reynolds, Bill Miller, Randy
Rosenberger, Lorna Reach, Nadine Kirkpatrick, Carolyn Pickrel, Jared Anderson, Patti
Redmond, Deborah Gambrell, Susan Griffin, Adrian Chevraux-Fitzhugh, Lynne
Giovannetti.
Guests: Chris Seddon, Faculty Co Chair for Ed Tech; Bob Martinelli, VP of
Administrative Services; Annette Barfield, LRCFT Representative; Alan Keys,
Psychology.
Call to Order: Meeting called to order by Connie at 12:03.
Approval of Minutes: Minutes from 3-1 approved by consensus.
Reports: Election Committee Update--G. Rose
There are three contested positions, all for full time faculty; each of the candidates has presented
a candidate statement. Today or at latest tomorrow all full time faculty will be getting ballots via
email. All votes have to be cast by noon on Friday the 25th. Also, Connie is getting requests for
appointments for vacant positions and will address those as soon as possible; she is not sure if
she makes the appointments now or if Ginni will make those in the fall.
Announcements: today at 2:00 all the campus Senate Presidents, along with Greg who chairs
the District Budget Committee, are meeting with the Chancellor to discuss what was decided at
the Board retreat about how Los Rios will be structured over the next few years in the face of
contracting revenues. As soon as Connie and Greg can share information from that meeting they
will. Connie anticipates various scenarios like the A, B, and C budget scenarios, best case,
moderate case, worst case. Connie believes they will be discussing issues which relate to Los
Rios 2013.
NEW BUSINESS
Campus Issues Discussion
Twice a month the campus Executive Council meets. The two issues below were brought
forward by colleagues and the Senate needs to weigh in so that feedback can be given to the
Exec. Council.
Food Closet
N. Kirkpatrick/G. Rose
Nadine is looking for allocated space to store food that is dry and can be safely stored, which
can then be distributed to students in need. Some campus clubs have already shown interest in
helping. Nadine is considering going into the community and seeing if she can drum up support.
Also, she notes that the food closet concept is bigger than just feeding students; it teaches
students social justice and responsibility. This would only be for SCC students. UC Davis has a
program like this and it is very successful. She would like to start small and do it right, and then
perhaps grow over time. Someone asked, where would we put it? Nadine said we could store
stock in the staff lounge, and other locations are being considered. Is there criteria for who
could get food? Those details have not been worked out. Connie reminded us that deciding
bodies will want details to help move the project forward. Connie said that Nadine needs input
and support as she develops her plan. Someone noted that with the economy not doing well this
is something we should be able to do. Moved and seconded that we support the food closet
concept and that we still want more information: approved by consensus with one
abstention.
Clothing Closet
S. Culmo
The clothing closet would be called the SCC Panther Professional Clothing Closet. Many
students need professional clothes for job interviews or work. The Closet would offer consulting
services about how to dress, also. Students would come via referral, and would not only receive
clothing but also career referral services. This would be run by students in conjunction with the
internship program. It would be open two days a week for four hours, and perhaps another day
to receive donations. Shannon told us that the biggest issue is space. A student has come up
with logos, and a large committee has been working on this issue for two years. ARC and CRC
already have a similar program, though with focuses beyond just professional clothing. SCC
wants to focus on professional clothing at first and perhaps move to other types of clothing if
the program goes well. The plan is to provide a student a full professional outfit, limited to
once a semester or perhaps once a year. At some point Shannon would like to work with the
fashion department and fashion students to help tailor the clothing. Moved and seconded that
we support the Clothing Closet concept: approved by consensus.
Staff Development Committee
2011-12 Proposals
N. Kirkpatrick
Nadine brought us a new, proposed theme for Staff Development: “SCC Leading Through
Change.” She said that this is a simple phrase that holds many different meanings. A handout
was also distributed with an explanatory paragraph. Nadine reminded us that this theme will
cover many staff development activities over the next two years. Connie asked who is driving
this change, faculty, administration, or staff? Nadine responded that Elaine came up with the
paragraph and the SD committee then crafted the final statement. Someone noted that the
statement seems to say that we are making changes we want to make when in fact we are being
forced to make changes in light of budget changes. Connie was concerned with the language
about student success. Someone else raised questions about the term “refocus;” someone else
suggested “reaffirm.” Connie wondered if there were other things we would also like included?
Someone wondered about defining the term “mission;” is that too vague? Also, someone asked
if there a deadline for input on the content? Nadine answered that it would be nice to have it
back to Elaine before April first; she asked for edits during the next week. Someone asked if we
should we change the statement to “will lead” over “must lead?”
Someone noted there is nothing in the statement about continuing to maintain access for
students. Connie seconded this idea; as everything becomes squeezed, how will we maintain
access? Someone asked how to define access and success? Also, what about students who are
here for many years; how do they affect access? What about students who repeat a course over
and over? The statement stresses faculty accountability, but what about students and
administration? Connie asked if we could forward Nadine suggested edits and cc the Senate so
we can all participate; Troy will send an email to everyone that contains the current language
and then we can hit “reply all” and all can participate. Nadine will report back at our April 5th
meeting.
SCC Mid-Year Budget Review
B. Martinelli
Bob provided a quick overview of this fiscal year. There will be multiple meetings this week
discussing 12-13, but Bob feels we are in a good place executing the current year’s revenues.
This year we are about 400K in the black in the SCC college budget; this is the 20 percent piece
of the bucket which comes to us for discretionary spending. The Partnership for Excellent (PFE)
money, much of which has been used to pay lease at outreach centers, is now coming back too
us now that the centers are becoming permanent campuses. Divisions have also constrained
spending and that has helped with the surplus. For the most part, the Divisions have not needed
supplemental dollars. The biggest change has had to do with financial aid, especially the money
we have to pay back to the Feds. We estimated $50K for this year and had to pay more than
$300K. We must get a better handle on financial aid payments because that number is far too
large. Another reminder to do enrollment management! The Unit Plans may receive some
assistance from the surplus. And we will still end with a little seed money. Someone asked,
aren’t we doing better with the financial aid issue, with managing our roll sheets? Bob answered
that here is quite a bit of lag. Someone else noted that students are not buying their books.
Should financial aid money be sent directly to the bookstore to pay for books? There are many
restrictions, Bob noted, in how that money can be disbursed. Some students are using the money
for personal expenditures and then walking away from the debt.
PRIE Report
A. Jovanovic/A. Chevraux-Fitzhugh
The PRIE Standing Committee presented us with some data for feedback and input. Nearly one
quarter of our students earn a 0.0 GPA in their first semester at SCC; this does not include W’s
if the student dropped before the drop date. A hand out was provided. Also, almost 60 percent
of our students are near the poverty line; more than half are first generation college students.
What data should we request to better help our students? Do we know if these failing students
are students who attended to the end of the course or disappeared and were not dropped? Adrian
thinks some of them probably should have been dropped, but PRIE does not have concise data
on that question. The information for financial aid is kept separately from PRIE and PRIE is in
the process of getting information from FA. The committee would like to provide us a list of
links in the future so we can all access data from across the campus. Again, we were asked what
further data we might want. Some suggestions were: Current data reflects information only
about students, what about the college and how it serves the students? Are they not getting basic
skills courses that they need? How many students are not buying their books? What students
have successfully completed the pre-reqs? Are they taking them before or concurrently? How
many of them have gone through orientation? How many of them accessed any form of
resource on the campus? What percentage is taking more than one class? Is there a way to know
if a student is failing more classes than just our own class? Connie asked us to forward
information to Adrian and Angelia. She reminded us that data is going to start driving
scheduling, and this is a good time to look into these issues.
District Wide SLO Proposal
A. Keys
Alan presented a change in the level that the accreditation committee expects in 2012 in terms of
our SLO compliance. This mostly relates to the awareness that students have of their course
SLO’s. ARC has proposed that SLO’s be included in online schedules and online catalogs.
Also, they want program level SLO’s linked to Socrates; currently there is no section to link our
program SLO’s to the courses within those programs. ARC wants feedback on their proposals.
Connie will forward Alan’s document to the Senators. ARC is hoping to see the Socrates part in
place by Fall 2011. Alan will come to a future meeting for further discussion.
Final comments: Connie told us that the statewide Academic Senate Resolutions which are
voted on at Plenary are online and have also been distributed to all Senators; also, a Disciplines
list has been sent. She explained how the Discipline list works using Kinesiology as an example.
Connie explained that in the minimum qualifications to teach Health, someone wants to use
Kinesiology as an allowed degree for anyone who teaches Health. The Discipline list contains
suggested minimum qualifications for many programs. If faculty in affected departments vote No
on the disciplines list, it means he or she is not happy with the suggested list of background
degrees allowed to teach in your discipline.. If we want another background degree included that
is not on the list, that is a different discussion at another time. At this time we are voting on what
is there, not what is missing from the list. The process to add a discipline to any min qual will
start up again next year in Feb/March via the statewide Academic Senate.
On the Resolutions: Connie is the voting delegate for SCC: she will vote according to the Senate
wishes. Some of the Resolutions do not affect SCC; some are substantial and should be
considered by our faculty. There are suggested changes to course repeatability in some
disciplines, for example. We will discuss the Resolutions at our April 5th meeting and Connie
will take any feedback at that time.
Meeting adjourned: 1:00.
NEXT MEETING:
April 5, 2011
To place items on future agendas, please call x2150