Approved Minutes
Sacramento City College
Academic Senate
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
President: Ginni May
Vice-President: Greg Rose
Secretary: Troy Myers
Past-President: Connie Zuercher
Senators Present: Roxanne Tambert, Andrea Greenwell, Adam Freas, Angelia Jovanovic, Jon
Hanson, Karen Kunimura, Susan Griffin, Leila Stone, Sue Carriere, Chris Seddon, Deborah
Gambrell, Joseph Phillips, Dena Chubbic, Gayle Pitman, Randy Rosenberger, Jared Anderson,
Lori Petite, Amy Zannakis, Gabriella Nuttall, Lonnie Larson, Adrian Chevraux-FitzHugh, Lynne
Giovannetti, Deborah Crumpton, Andrew Jones.
Senators Absent: Norman Lorenz, Kim Beyrer, John Herlihy, Maha Edlbi, Josh Roberts, Robin
Roffey, Steve Cirrone, Clay Bratton, Patti Redmond, Donna Nacey, Marcie MacMillan, Simeon
Okoroike, Darlene Arnold, Laura Leek.
Guests: Craig Davis, Lisa Bauduin.
Call to Order: meeting called to order at 12:00 by Ginni.
Approval of Minutes: minutes from 3-6 approved by consensus.
Introductions
Reports
Budget – Greg Rose: Jon Sharpe and Theresa Matista will meet April 16 or 20 to discuss the
budget. The time is not yet set and faculty can email Ginni with suggestions. Connie noted that
on April 20th the Senate officers will be at Plenary; perhaps we can request the earlier date. The
Chancellor has recently sent out new budget information. We still have our best case, mid-case,
and worst case scenarios; our District is active in planning for varied contingencies. The worst
case would be the tax initiative not passing. This would mean that 13-14 would likely see a 6.5
pay cut across the pay scale; this would be after FTE reductions and health care increases. The
other two scenarios do not involve pay cuts. In 13-14 we actually expect to add FTE back into
the schedule except in the worst case scenario. This would involve using $ 26 million in reserves
if approved by the Board of Trustees. Because of the 50/50 law, we cannot cut courses much
deeper unless other operating costs (including salaries) are also cut. About 87 percent of the
District’s budget currently goes to wages and salaries. Dean Murakami is holding a forum this
Thursday at noon in RHN 258 to discuss the budget and future implications.
Forensics Resolution Amended: this was sent out to all Senators and will be shared at the Area
A meeting. Faculty from across the District, including those outside Communications, have
worked on the language and on the larger problem. Special thanks to all! Also, special
congratulations to SCC’s Forensics team, which just placed 2nd in the nation.
Presidium Update – Troy Myers: the District Office currently outsources some of its student
help line support for D2L to a company called Presidium. The cost of using Presidium is going to
double this year to about $ 42,000 and it is expected to continue to increase in cost. In an effort
to save money, District IT is planning to shift student helpline support entirely to internal staff.
No new staff will be hired under the current plan, but Steve Bowles at District is confident they
can provide even better helpline support for students; however, support will not be available 24/7
as Presidium currently is. What will the new hours be? Only during weekdays, but Steve did not
give specific hours at the meeting and Troy will follow up with that question. Are many calls
from students received late at night or during the weekends? No. The Educational Technology
Committee noted the same: District believes it will have live support during the most critical
hours (including early in the semester) and that students who call during off hours will have
follow up in less than 24 hours. More information will be coming as the plan takes more concrete
shape. All four campus Senates have representatives involved.
Announcements
Student Learning Outcomes: Ginni reminded us that we need to have evidence that we are
tracking SLO’s and keep that data so that the accreditation teams can see it when they come
through in three years. There will be further information on this in the April meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
Reading Competency Criteria
G. May
Does the Senate support the current suggested rubric for Reading competency or do we want the
District Academic Senate to ask the Reading Competency Committee to reconsider the criteria?
Karen noted that the DCCC recommended that the DAS accept the Reading Competency report,
but the DAS asked for the competencies to be reconsidered. Current Board regulations only
allow students to take the competency test twice; should this be four times? Is this fair
considering some of them take this for the first time when they are high school students? A
Senator noted that there has been discussion about taking out the exclusive language which
makes it difficult for any other course to meet competency apart from Reading courses taught by
Reading faculty. One Reading faculty member feels that the criteria should be lowered to allow
for courses in other departments to meet competency. What if a student has taken their GE or
IGETC courses and passed them all; could this also be used to meet competency? Some colleges
do allow this. The Reading faculty at SCC seem to be in favor of supporting a less exclusive
rubric. How many colleges have reading criteria as strict as ours? It appears only Los Rios and
Solano, though the answer to this is complex; in part because in many districts there is some
combination of the disciplines. We were reminded that Reading is a foundational skill to
Humanities courses as well as Math.
Motion made to ask the DAS to recommend the Reading Competency Committee
reexamine the Reading Competency criteria so that the language is less exclusive; also to
allow more attempts to pass Reading Competency; also to look into the idea of having a
student pass IGETC or GE breadth to meet Reading Competency, and also consider
creating a course which matches the new criteria at the 200 level. Motion carried
unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
District IT Roster ID Request
G. May
Resolution 2011.5 from CRC: CRC wants to include the photos from the student ID’s in our
PeopleSoft rosters. Would we have the choice to print our rosters with photos or without? We
could make the request to be able to print without photos. Would these photos automatically
populate to D2L? Some students may not want their photos in D2L. There are some concerns
with FERPA laws, and the District is looking into those concerns. Someone noted this might
make it easier for online instructors to identify their students when they do meet face to face.
Please discuss this with your divisions and we will discuss this again at our next meeting. So far
the three other colleges have reported back in favor, but the DAS will still take concerns. Will
this cost anything? No one is sure.
Campus Issue 11-12-05
C. Davis
Formation of SCC Sustainability Committee: Craig would like to see some broad-based
holistic sustainability activity. CRC has a similar committee but it is only a subcommittee of the
Academic Senate. Craig and others at SCC supporting this new committee would like it to be a
full shared governance committee. Ginni thinks this must be discussed with the Campus
Development Committee. Craig has been in contact with that committee. Craig feels that
sustainability goes beyond Campus Development; it is not just a facilities issue. Would this be an
advisory body? It would be a standing committee and they are always advisory. We will discuss
this at our next meeting.
New Faculty Positions Process Special Meeting
G. May
The President is recommending the open Psychology position be filled with a voluntary transfer;
this is not a done deal. If Alan does move over, funding for the faculty researcher position would
only be guaranteed from District for one year. We would need a subcommittee of 5-6 Senators to
help find a new faculty researcher. The Faculty leadership and Administration have agreed to
better communication in the future with such decisions. Do we need a special meeting to discuss
what has occurred and future process? Mary reminded us that four positions have been pulled,
but that the paperwork for the voluntary reassignment has not moved forward to the Board
Agenda at this time. Someone noted that Alan made the request to move over because he desires
a change; other faculty make similar moves. There is still concern about not having a faculty
researcher. With new changes to pre-requisites there are new validation processes which need to
be handled by the research department and this position feels more critical than ever. Someone
asked, what about someone who was hired, as, say, a basketball coach and grew tired of that
position, should they be able to move out of coaching and into some other full time assignment
as this mirrors the current case as our current researcher was hired to do 60 percent research.
Someone else noted that their department has been bumped off the hiring list completely though
they were ranked higher than Psychology and Psychology is getting a position. If we do have a
special meeting we could discuss other ways to handle the faculty research role. Ginni feels that
if we do have to hire a new faculty researcher, the Senate needs to be very proactive as part of
the process. Also, what if next year there is a critical hire for a faculty researcher? That will
bump other positions lower. Should we handle the research position the same way that we handle
the BSI and Staff Development position? The Senate has not had a chance to discuss this.
Should (or does) the Psychology position even exist since four positions have been pulled
including theirs? Are we delving into Union territory? The contract language relates to moving
from one college to another not to movement within a campus. Moved and seconded to have a
special meeting for continued discussion, next Tuesday at noon; passed unanimously, with
four abstentions. The purpose of the meeting could be to discuss the possibility of crafting a
statement from the Senate about process; also, to begin discussing filling the research position if
necessary.
Ginni’s understanding is that the transfer was approved before the last four positions were
pulled, and that District has said we can keep the Psychology transfer if we wish.
Hiring Prioritization Forms/Process
G. May
Questions or comments? There are suggestions which we will consider at the next meeting.
NEXT MEETING: April 17, 2012, RHN 258, noon
To place items on future agendas, please email Ginni May at
mayv@scc.losrios.edu