MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE
May 18, 2015
1. The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. on May 18, 2015. Roll was called and the following
Senators were present: Chairperson Valerie Burke, Vice Chair Hisham Ahmed, Past Chair Keith Ogawa,
Berna Aksu, Steve Cortright, Gretchen Lemke-Santangelo, Ronald Olowin, Chris Ray, Suzy Thomas,
Aaron Sachs and Parliamentarian Mark Lingwood.
Also present were: Linda Baumgardner, Kenneth Cardwell FSC, Vice Provost Richard Carp, Provost
Beth Dobkin, Cathy Davalos, Cathy Finger-Podolsky, CTO Peter Greco, Linda Herkenhoff, Jessica
Kintner, Dean Pat Kreitz, Kathy Porter, Jim Sauerberg, Elena Songster, Mindy Thomas, Gregg Thomson,
Ted Tsukahara, Sarah Vital, Elise Wong, and Dean Roy Wensley.
REPORTS
1. Chairperson’s Report - Chair Burke introduced the Consent Agenda items from the Undergraduate
Educational Policies Committee (UEPC). The following were accepted on the Consent Agenda:
New Permanent Course TRS 189: The Bible and Its Interpretation: Great Themes
New Permanent Course TRS 128: The Trinity
Kinesiology Activity Proposal
PHED 003 proposal
New Permanent Courses CHEM 113 AND 113L: Analytical Chemistry
Chair Burke introduced the Consent Agenda items submitted by the Graduate & Professional Studies
Educational Policies Committee (GPSEPC). The following were accepted on the Consent Agenda:
New Areas of concentration in the MA Leadership program:
Social Innovation Labs for Systemic Change
Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation
Provisional Approval for Perfa 347 ??? Teaching Practicum (the number to be
Determined by the Registrar)
Provisional Approval for Perfa 347 and 348 in MFA Dance degree
Chair Burke welcomed new Senators Jessica Kintner, Thomas Gomez-Arias, Helga Lénárt-Cheng, and
incoming Vice Chair Mindy Thomas. She also bid farewell to Senators Berna Aksu, Ron Olowin, Aaron
Sachs, and Past Chair Keith Ogawa.
2.
Provost’s Updates – Provost Dobkin reported that SEIU bargaining sessions have commenced.
3.
Committee on Committees (CoC) Year-End Report – Vice Chair Ahmed submitted the year-end
report in written form. The report is on file in the Office of the Academic Senate. He thanked the
members of the CoC for their work this year: Ken Brown, Kathryn Koo, Susan Marston, and William
Lee. The CoC has met approximately nine times in person, as well as numerous emails, discussions and
1
deliberations. Accomplishments this year include: revision of the Rules of Procedure and development of
preliminary criteria to be used for intensive workload designation. The faculty election was the large task
for the year, and the committee has made recommendations to modernize the system.
4. Graduate and Professional Studies Educational Policies Committee (GPSEPC) Year-End Report Linda Herkenhoff submitted her report in written form, which is on file in the Office of the Academic
Senate. She also announced that the GPSEPC now has a Moodle site. She thanked the members of the
committee for their service. Accomplishments include: sabbatical proposal consideration, ten provisional
approvals, several Faculty Handbook revisions, new language for the approval of courses, and
consideration of many course proposals. The GPSEPC also has an item on the agenda to discuss the
equity of faculty service.
5. Undergraduate Educational Policies Committee (UEPC) Year-End Report – Kathy Porter submitted a
written report, which is on file in the Office of the Academic Senate. She thanked the hard working
committee members: Bob Gorsch, Molly Metherd, Steve Bachofer, Chris Ray, Elena Escalera, Jose
Feito, Sam Lind, Steve Miller, EliseWong and Sue Fallis. She reported that the UEPC assisted the
GPSEPC in the sabbatical proposal review and recommendation process. Additional accomplishments
include: review of the five-year calendar, the ranked faculty in Jan Term/Seminar proposal, Science Lab
workload credit proposal, Kinesiology .25 activity course proposal, Integral proposal re: core waivers,
CCC change of language in Global Perspective, and the CCC course designation renewal proposal. The
UEPC reviewed and approved 17 new permanent status courses, seven experimental course, two new
minors: SEBA Interfaith Leadership and SOLA Cinematic Arts Minor, 11 proposals for changes to the
current course, revision to the Rules of Procedure, and selection of the winner of the DeLaSalle award for
2015.
Some items for consideration in 2015-16:
11 new permanent status courses proposals
Redesigning of the UEPC website
Reassess rules for status for new courses presented as part of a new program
What to do with minors in the department when they want majors to attain the minor also
Develop a list for chair and faculty to review what issues go before the UEPC
Develop a procedure for courses that are deleted from the Catalog
Set time restriction for courses in experimental status. (There is a backlog of 36 experimental courses that
have completed their experimental offerings and are in need of formal approval. A total of 60 courses
have experimental status.)
6. Academic Administrators Evaluation Committee (AAEC) – Cathy Finger-Podolsky reported. The
AAEC first met in March 2014 after being inactive for a number of years. The procedures were revised
last year, but were not approved by the Provost. The new procedures remained a matter of importance
for the AAEC this year. Membership includes Cathy Finger-Podolsky, Raina Leon, Greg Smith, Elena
Songster, and Gregg Thomson. The academic administrators need formative input. The AAEC developed
a calendar for review. Deans Li and Wensley were the most overdue and underwent a review this spring.
Vice Provosts Carp and Sindt will be reviewed next year. The following year the President and the
Provost are scheduled for review.
The evaluation form used was reviewed by Deans Li and Wensley, as well as Provost Dobkin, prior to the
distribution of the evaluation. AAEC members will not see the results of the evaluation. Response rates
were 70%. The Deans have been asked to report out the results of the evaluations either to the faculty of
their schools and/or at a Senate meeting.
2
Past Chair Ogawa asked whether assistant and associate deans are to be evaluated. Cathy FingerPodolsky answered that the AAEC does not have the authority to evaluate assistant and associate deans at
this point. Assistant deans are considered nonacademic administrators. Chair Burke added that one of the
plans for next year is to review the FH language and ask the Senate to enact authority for the evaluation of
associate deans. Provost Dobkin added that assistant deans primarily are in support positions and do not
have line authority over ranked faculty. Associate deans may be in a position to evaluate contingent
faculty. She also thanked the AAEC for their efforts in developing the instrument for evaluation.
7. Core Curriculum Committee (CCC) - Jim Sauerberg offered thanks to all members of the CCC.
Over the last four years they have made 250 designations. Next year the first Core Curriculum class will
graduate. The CCC has had a successful year and a report on the assessment work will be brought
forward to the Senate. Many issues have come up this year where the campus needs to think about what it
means to have a core curriculum.
Chair Burke thanked all Chairs for their reports and their work throughout the year.
OLD BUSINESS
8. Ranked Faculty Participation in Jan Term/Collegiate Seminar - This issue has been ongoing since
the fall. Past Chair Ogawa prepared the following revised version of the position statement for
consideration:
Sense of the Academic Senate
Whereas the Faculty Academic Senate (Senate) recognizes the decline in ranked faculty
participation in the Collegiate Seminar and Jan Term programs; and
Whereas the Senate recognizes that ranked faculty are tenured to the College and not to a program
(FH §2.1.1); and
Whereas the Senate recognizes the “… commitment of faculty to the aims and ideals of the
College, taking into consideration the nature, purposes, and goals of specific programs.” (FH
§2.6.1); and
Whereas the Senate recognizes the Academic Administration’s responsibility in providing
adequate ranked staffing levels for ranked faculty participation in the Collegiate Seminar and Jan
Term programs;
Therefore, the Senate opposes the imposition of quotas on individuals, departments, programs or
Schools and endorses the removal of barriers to participation in the aforementioned programs
through increased staffing to allow equitable and sufficient participation across departments,
programs and schools Schools and acknowledges The that the proportion of ranked faculty
teaching in January term and in Collegiate Seminar should in these programs be broadly
representative of this proportion across the undergraduate college College.
Chair Burke explained that replacement statement was authorized by the executive committee. The past
statement was never moved.
3
Vice Chair Ahmed stated that one must consider five different, yet interrelated, parties: Jan Term and
Collegiate Seminar Directorship, the academic administration of the College, the Academic Senate,
faculty and students. This conceptualization is not meant to treat the parties as separate entities, but to
facilitate the understanding of the very critical set of issues to better enable us to consider viable solutions.
In the draft statement the burden of proof is almost placed exclusively on ranked faculty for the decline of
ranked faculty participation in these two programs.
The Senate needs to hear from Jan Term/Collegiate Seminar administration and open a constructive
dialogue with them on this matter. How is one to interpret their decline to answer Chair Burke’s request
for cooperation dating back to February 2015. He understands that the college needs to know what to do
about hiring in these two programs, and/or the entire college. The statement provides no solution or
remedy. The Academic Senate is expected to reflect the concerns of faculty and find a compromise
between the needs of administration and the aspirations of faculty; that role will be compromised by the
draft statement.
The statement is not consistent with its quest for understanding the cause of decreased ranked faculty
participation in the programs. The students are the most important of all the parties. Every student will
have Jan Term and Collegiate Seminar courses. All students will be impacted by the Senate’s decision.
The discussion needs to have cooperation of all parties concerned. Adopting the statement may hinder
coming up with a well thought out formula for what is a nuanced issue.
Chair Burke shared that she agrees with many of Vice Chair Ahmed’s points; however, she has come to
view this as a necessary first step. We need to make a statement that there is a problem. We need to have
task forces, town hall meetings, additional discussions, and deliberations with the directors, but planning
all of those things requires a decision that there is a problem. Can we make this statement as a precursor
in order to address the problem?
Senator Sachs asked Vice Chair Ahmed if he has a sense of what is causing this problem; why does he
think there is a disparity of ranked faculty teaching in these programs. This is a complicated issue and he
does not think we know the causes. The fact that the Seminar program made a change in structure may
have been the cause for some faculty to stop teaching because they did not agree with the change. This is
a difficult issue for the Seminar program. Many experienced with teaching in Seminar have attended the
formation sessions reluctantly. We need to figure out how to address that issue. He doesn’t know why
experienced people would stop teaching Jan Term, other than the fact that it is a difficult schedule.
Vice Chair Ahmed answered that he cannot claim authority on the matter. There was a survey conducted
by Senate, in coordination with the Institutional Research office. Some of the most experienced
professors have stopped teaching in these programs, which made him stop and think. There has been
indication that there could be some issues related to the structural and functional areas of the programs.
There needs to be a serious conversation by all parties concerned. These are assumptions, there has been
no agreement in the Senate about these issues. We have to understand from the faculty why they have
stopped teaching in these programs.
Chair Burke added that the surveys also indicated the departmental demands are also a major reason for
folks to not teach in these programs. Senator Lemke-Santangelo said many faculty want to teach in these
programs but could not because of staffing issues in the department. We do need to start somewhere and
this statement does not prevent us from looking at the issues further.
4
Senator Aksu questioned Vice Chair Ahmed’s statement about this resolution hindering the progress on
the issue. Vice Chair Ahmed explained that there is no clarity of what to do with the statement. The
position statement at some time will have to be translated into action. The statement is too vague, without
clarity of any solution.
Linda Herkenhoff offered that having a statement would also get people focused on the subject; this could
be a starting point. She encouraged the Senate to approve the statement in order to engage conversation.
Ted Tsukahara pointed out that there is no motion on the floor. If the Senate has the sense to do
something he encouraged them to forward the issues to the various committees for evaluation: Faculty
Welfare can look at the workload issues, or R&T can look at other issues. His suggestion was to make a
motion, or move on to other business.
A MOTION was made by Senator Aksu and SECONDED by Senator Lemke-Santangelo to approve the
Sense of the Senate statement.
Richard Carp added that ranked faculty participation in Seminar has been declining for over a decade.
The data does not suggest that it is a result of the curriculum change.
Senator Cortright asked Past Chair Ogawa to explain the intention of the wording of the revised
statement. What would constitute equitable and sufficient participation or does the Resolution suggest
that it is up to the Senate to give an account of what would constitution sufficient and equitable
participation?
In the line, “proportion of ranked faculty… should be broadly representative…”
representative of what? There is an argument that present proportions of participation are broadly
representative of faculty sentiment.
Past Chair Ogawa said the term, “equitable and sufficient” was language from the original statement. It
was his intent to keep the language ambiguous.
Senator Cortright requested the Senators to reflect. Passage of this resolution without a strong vote will
do us no credit and the college no good.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion as follows:
Hisham Ahmed
Keith Ogawa
Berna Aksu
Steve Cortright
Gretchen Lemke-Santangelo
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Ronald Olowin
Chris Ray
Aaron Sachs
Valerie Burke
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
The motion was approved by a vote of 6-3.
NEW BUSINESS
9.
GPSEPC Faculty Service Discussion – Senator Aksu introduced the following item for discussion.
Faculty Service Discussion Item from GPSEPC
5
As with most educational institutions, college-wide service is a faculty expectation, but there is a
distinct inequity in who actually is fully engaged in their service commitment to the College.
When faculty members are elected to campus-wide committees, but fail to actively participate in
the work of the committee, there are repercussions. For example, when one or more faculty
members do not carry out their share of the committee work, the extra work falls on the remaining
members. Further tenured faculty members serve as role models for less experienced faculty, and
given that service is a key value of our community, it needs to be demonstrated by all senior
members.
While we recognize that this is a complicated situation, to begin the conversation, we offer the
following proposal for the Senate’s discussion and consideration. Faculty members who miss
more than one third of the committee meetings in an academic year will be replaced by another
faculty member appointed by the COC. The Chair of the committee in question will make the
proposal to the COC after coaching the faculty member about improving their meeting attendance.
The faculty member will receive a letter from the Chair of the Senate explaining the importance of
service to our community.
The GPSEPC recognizes that this is a very complex issue. The GPSEPC also recognizes that this issue is
being brought forward for discussion because of the experience on the GPSEPC, but the issue is being
replicated across various committees. When the membership is small, as with the GPSEPC, it makes it
impossible for the remaining members to fulfill the mandate and charge of the committee when one
member of the GPSEPC has not participated all year. It is an elected committee, it is a workload issue
and an outcome of the inequity of faculty in terms of service workload. This inequity of service workload
was also identified as an area for improvement in the recent WASC report. It is suggested that the
Academic Senate chair get involved. It is suggested to adopt a policy to address the problem. For
example, should a faculty miss more than one-third of meetings in one year, the CoC Chair will appoint
another faculty member to fill that position.
Past Chair Ogawa responded that this would be called negative reinforcement in the field of Psychology.
A faculty member decides they will not participate, and they are removed from the committee.
In response to a question on procedure from the Senate, Chair Burke agreed to allow ten minutes for the
discussion on this issue.
Chris Ray asked about an anticipated timeline. Linda Herkenhoff answered that they would want to the
ability to replace the faculty member as soon as the absence is problematic.
Senator Lemke-Santangelo expressed her hesitancy for the Senate to take on the role of sanctioning
faculty for something that is part of their contract. The R&T process may come into play in this instance.
Linda Herkenhoff noted that there is no post tenure review at SMC, so the idea is not to sanction faculty,
but to allow the work to continue on the committees without overburdening other members. The
GPSEPC requested the initial discussion, but it is planned that the GPSEPC will have a more formal
proposal for the CoC to consider in the Fall.
Vice Provost Carp said he sees strong analogies between this item and the ranked faculty participation in
Jan Term and Collegiate Seminar issue. Linda Herkenhoff responded that participation in Jan Term and
Collegiate Seminar is optional, but committee service is contractual.
6
Ted Tsukahara explained that there used to be Rules about Senator’s attendance at Senate meetings and
clear rules if they had to step down in the Faculty Handbook. When he served as Senate Chair, he wrote
evaluations to Senators about their participation on the Senate.
Past Chair Ogawa reported that the Senate did talk about this subject several years ago. The issue of the
Chair writing letters to the members was considered. It was questioned whether that would bring the
firestorm on the Chair(s), making an undesirable work environment. The Senate elected not to pursue that
remedy at that time. Senator Aksu said she had no motion at this time, but will continue to work on the
issue, taking into consideration the input received.
10. Faculty Welfare Committee FH Revision 1.7.4.2 –The following Faculty Handbook revision of the
membership of the FWC was introduced by Vice Chair Ahmed. The CoC received the proposed revision
from the FWC and have reviewed and approved the revision. The CoC did question the reduction of the
nontenured membership to one year, but after further conversation with the FWC, they agreed with the
proposed revision.
Rationale: Given that the duties of the Faculty Welfare Committee has expanded and in order to provide faculty with
a current description of their expanded responsibilities while serving on the committee and for faculty election
purposes,
Be it resolved: That the Faculty Handbook be amended with the following changes:
1.7.4.2
Faculty Welfare Committee
Role: The Faculty Welfare Committee represents the faculty on appropriate committees by participating in discussion
and determination of financial priorities, faculty salaries, and fringe benefits, retirement benefits and by promoting
and protecting faculty interest in matters concerning working conditions, such as workload, office space,
administrative assistance, communications, and parking facilities. Members of the Faculty Welfare Committee will be
responsible for attending the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee meetings, provide representation on the
Campus Facilities group, with the Chair of the Faculty Welfare Committee also responsible for attending the
College’s Budget Committee meetings and related committees/task forces established by the Provost. The
Chair will also report annually about progress being made by the College on the salary goals established by the
Trustees in the most recently adopted Faculty Salary Policy. Faculty Salary Policy adopted in January 2012.
The members shall be free to exercise their own individual judgment in above matters as elected and therefore are
accountable representatives of the faculty.
Membership: The committee consists of five voting members:
- three tenured faculty members elected at large for staggered three-year terms
- one ranked non-tenured faculty member elected at-large for a one-year term
- one liaison senator, serving a one-year term, renewable.
Once the spring election cycle is complete, the current chairperson will call a meeting, to be attended by all current
and incoming committee members. At this meeting this group will select the chairperson for the following year from
among those who will then be serving on the committee. The Senate liaison is ineligible to serve as chair. The
chairperson receives reassigned
time from teaching assignments commensurate with the responsibilities of the office.
Meetings:
The Faculty Welfare Committee meets every two weeks at appropriate times as scheduled by the chairperson of the
Committee. The Faculty Welfare Committee informs the Academic Senate of its proceedings regularly and/or on
request. Agendas and Minutes of Open Meetings are posted on the Faculty Governance Webpage.
7
Specific reference was made to the extension of the terms for tenured faculty from two years to three
years, and the reduction of the non-tenured position to one year. A MOTION was made by Vice Chair
Ahmed and SECONDED by Senator Cortright to approve the resolution.
Provost Dobkin suggested the addition of the word “ranked” under Role. A MOTION was made by
Senator Cortright and SECONDED by Senator Olowin to insert the word “ranked” between “represent
the” and “faculty” in the first line. The amendment was accepted by hand vote.
Ted Tsukahara replied that the entire Faculty Handbook should be searched to replace all “faculty” with
“ranked faculty” as this is the current language in the FH. A vote on the revised FH language as amended
was taken as follows:
Hisham Ahmed
Keith Ogawa
Berna Aksu
Steve Cortright
Gretchen Lemke-Santangelo
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ronald Olowin
Chris Ray
Aaron Sachs
Valerie Burke
Yes
Yes
Yes
Abstain
The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0 with one abstention.
11. 2015-2016 Core Curriculum Working Groups and Chairs - The list for the 2015-2016 CCC
Working Groups was submitted by CCC Chair Jim Sauerberg for approval. It was verified that for those
positions marked “TBA,” the faculty names will be submitted to the Senate for confirmation in the Fall.
A MOTION was made by Senator Cortright and SECONDED by Senator Ray to approved the submitted
list. A roll call vote was taken on the motion as follows:
Hisham Ahmed
Keith Ogawa
Berna Aksu
Steve Cortright
Gretchen Lemke-Santangelo
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ronald Olowin
Chris Ray
Aaron Sachs
Valerie Burke
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0.
Chair Burke announced that the appointment of a new CCC Chair is being addressed by the Senate. The
process is for the Senate Executive Committee, the outgoing CCC Chair, and the Chair of the UEPC to
solicit nominations from faculty. The Senate Executive Committee, outgoing CCC Chair and the UEPC
Chair are to agree on one nomination to bring to the Senate for confirmation. The Senate will meet to
review the nominations. The Senate is not ready to discuss this publically before a confirmation vote is
taken by the end of the week. Provost Dobkin added that the appointment is critical, and she reminded
faculty that there is a 2018 WASC expectation that we will have done a credible assessment of the core in
order to not invoke the pattern of special visits. She thanked the Senators for their willingness to address
this issue this week.
Vice Chair Ahmed said it is important to have clarity, and asked for clarification of the process. Chair
Burke said the only information available to present is the information that we do have candidates, but do
not have a single nomination to bring forward for a vote. The executive members, the CCC Chair and
8
UEPC Chair will find a time to meet in the next day or two to choose a nominee; the Chair would then
schedule the Senate to meet for a confirmation vote.
12. Sense of the Senate Resolution “4+1+4 Plus” - Senator Cortright introduced the following Sense of
the Senate resolution:
Resolved: The Sense of the Senate is in favor of the proposals variously under the names
“4+1+4 Plus” or “5th Course” emanating from the Office of Academic Affairs.
Senator Cortright stated that resolution, both in terms of its intention and utility, is likely to generate
opportunity for a large number of undergraduates; although it may be more limited for SEBA and SOS
students. It involves opening a doorway to academic achievement and the management of major
disciplinary studies. A MOTION was made by Senator Cortright and SECONDED by Senator LemkeSantangelo to approve. Provost Dobkin encouraged the Senate approval of this resolution which will give
students an option for a 5th course. Beginning in the Fall, upon approval of their advisor, they will give all
students the option of enrolling in a 5th course. They need to be in good academic standing and have
declared a major. There will be no additional payment required. This has been worked out with the
Business Office to make sure this can happen in the Fall.
Chair Burke asked if there will be an assessment to review the number of students that complete the 5th
course and its value. Provost Dobkin said it is important to track this information. The recommendation
came from a retention analysis done by an outside consultant with estimated costs almost exactly the same
as our Business Office.
Senator Sachs asked for clarification as to whether the 5th course can only come from open courses after
registration? Provost Dobkin said qualified students can register during the registration period. Vice
Provost Carp added that a request to add a section has never been rejected when classes were full and
there is evidence that there is student demand for the class.
Jim Sauerberg said he is in favor of the flexibility and he asked Senator Cortright if he is comfortable that
the ideas contained in his proposal are sympathetic with those from the Provost? Senator Cortright said
the Provost’s vision on this matter is significantly more generous than his.
Past Chair Ogawa expressed concern that this can impact registration for his psychology majors; he hopes
that will be taken into consideration. Ted Tsukahara encouraged the Senate to vote in favor of this as it
will give students flexibility. When he changed majors, he had to take overloads in order to graduate
before he lost his financial aid. We would be opening up opportunities for students. Senator Cortright
agreed that this will open up educational opportunities for students.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion as follows:
Hisham Ahmed
Keith Ogawa
Berna Aksu
Steve Cortright
Gretchen Lemke-Santangelo
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ronald Olowin
Chris Ray
Aaron Sachs
Valerie Burke
The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0.
9
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
13. Discussion re: Videotaping the Academic Senate Meetings – Chair Burke explained that there is no
specific proposal to introduce, the item will require a “yes” or “no” vote. She reported that the number of
views of the video range from 54 to 23 and the number of minutes watched varies significantly from
meeting to meeting. There is an expense involved for ITS to video record the meetings. It has been
suggested that to continue, the Senate should consider an outside vendor which would cost between $400$700 per meeting. The Senate has no budget for this expense, and would need to request additional
funding. Is the value of recording the meetings worth the cost?
Linda Herkenhoff suggested using audio only, which would reduce the cost. There is research indicating
that faculty would also listen to the audio of the meetings. Please consider why you need the video
component.
Past Chair Ogawa explained the Senate voted to move the meeting time, as well as having the video, in
response to faculty requests to be more available. He met with legal counsel, Larry Nuti, to discuss the
pitfalls of videotaping. The Senate voted to move forward with the taping.
CTO Peter Greco said the Senate needs to be aware of the cost. Trying to cover the media needs for
community time is difficult. If the Senate feels this is important, we will need to find a way to do it.
Senator Olowin said that recording as we have in the past gives us an archive and content. Chair Burke
noted that the video is not retained once the official minutes are approved.
Vice Chair Ahmed offered his thanks to ITS and Provost Dobkin for covering the cost this past year. The
video has afforded some faculty the opportunity to keep up with Senate meetings. It has established a
useful trend on campus as other events have used this method. Even if the recording is done by an outside
vendor, it could compromise user name and password for faculty, thus the College will need to be
involved. The College needs to consider the current trends, accept the culture of documentation and
digital information. This could enhance the stature of SMC. He has been considering how to further
improve the process, i.e., use of a cordless microphone, better positions for non-Senate speakers, etc. He
would argue to maintain the video recording.
Senator Cortright commented that attending Senate meetings is a contractual obligation of SMC faculty.
Provost Dobkin offered that she would much rather use the funding for video recording those events that
will be memorialized.
A MOTION was made by Senator Cortright and SECONDED by Senator Ray to discontinue the video
recording of Senate meetings.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion as follows:
Hisham Ahmed
Keith Ogawa
Berna Aksu
Steve Cortright
Gretchen Lemke-Santangelo
No
Abstain
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ronald Olowin
Chris Ray
Aaron Sachs
Valerie Burke
The motion was approved by a vote of 6-1 with two abstentions.
10
Yes
Yes
Yes
Abstain
Chair Burke thanked Rob Limon and CTO Peter Greco for their invaluable service. She further suggested
that the Senate could continue to discuss the posting of an audio recording of the Senate meetings in the
fall.
14. In closing Chair Burke announced that the Proposal re: Redesignation of Courses from the UEPC, which is listed as
the last item on the agenda, will need to carry over to the fall.
Further, she encouraged Senators to consider returning to the full Executive Committee meeting structure;
perhaps to be discussed in the fall.
She passed the gavel to Vice Chair Ahmed.
15. The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Cathe Michalosky
Faculty Governance Coordinator
11