ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES
April 19, 2005
Attendance (X indicates present, exc = excused, pre-arranged, absence)
Beley, Kate
Berney, Dan
Breckheimer, Debra
Cafarchia, Vic
Cannon, Elaine
Cowell, Chas
Dever, Susan
Gaines, Ken
Georges, William
Grogan, Donna
Hofmann, Ed
Hong, Lyman
Isaacs, Brent
Kahan, Walt
Marcoux, Pete
Marston, Doug
McCrary, Ed
McMillan, Russell
Meyer, Trudy
Moon, Mary
X
X
exc
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
exc
X
X
Morgan, Kathy
O’Brien, Kevin
Pan, Lijun
Perinetti, Dale
Raufman, Lisa
Robles, Vince
Rodriguez, George
Sinopoli, Louis
Stanbury, Corey
Stewart, Julie
Storms, Harrison
Stupy, Mike
Taylor, Ralph
Thompson, Jacquie
Thompson, Sonya
Uyemura, Evelyn
Vakil, David
Van Lue, Nick
Widman, Lance
Wynne, Michael
X
X
X
X/exc
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ex Officio Attendees: none
Guests: Ann Collette, Justin Bagnall, Phillip Gomez, Bryce Matson, Ken Key, Angela Simon, Leslie Back, Tom
Lew.
Unless noted otherwise, all page numbers refer to the packet used during the meeting, not the
current packet you are reading now.
President’s report – Julie Stewart (henceforth JS)
State Senate resolutions, beginning on page E1 from the April 5 & April 19 packet, mostly
passed and often with amendments.
Resolution 5.01 (page E2) regarding non-credit funding was referred to Executive Committee.
9.01 & 9.02 (p. E4) concerning increasing the English and Math requirements for an AA/AS
degree both passed (65-44 and 63-46 respectively). The English requirement will not affect us
since we already use the new requirements, but the Math requirement will impact us. This
proposal will take 2 years to implement, as they must pass the Board of Governors. There will
also be Title 5 implications. Stay tuned.
Page E5 begins the proposals for revising the minimum qualifications for teaching various
disciplines. The motions recommended by the Executive Committee (resolutions 10.01-10.07)
all passed except for 10.03 (Physical Education) because sports/fitness administration is a
business degree, not PE. The remaining disciplines proposals (10.08-10.36) failed.
Page E12 regarding the curriculum committee oversight, was referred to Executive Committee.
Page E13-14 passed except the top of page 14 regarding Reading Competency.
Minutes – none were available for approval
Educational Policies Report – Chas Cowell
The committee will meet with President Fallo on April 25 to discuss policy vs. procedure. ASO
students are here today to present a revision to the textbook adoption policy. The major change is
to allow for 2-year adoption, rather than 1-year, except in areas with critical updates. We will
vote on this at the next meeting. President Fallo has indicated he will side with us and that the
policy we forward will not be altered (e.g. into a procedure). Also, the ECCFT has no problem
with the proposed change. The proposed textbook adoption policy was distributed to senate
members during the meeting.
Faculty Development – Lisa Raufman
A flier was distributed regarding a retirement & financial planning seminar on April 26. Also
distributed was a sign-up sheet if people are interested in the school paying to send them to the
Great Teachers Seminar. Funding will be decided in May. Also, on May 19 will be a “Jobs for
College Graduates” presentation.
Finance and Special Projects – Lance Widman
There has been no Council of Deans meeting since the last senate meeting. PBC is positioning
itself to review funding requests (both one-time augmentations and permanent enhancements) as
entered in Q-builder.
Someone announced that California Community colleges will create a strategic plan starting next
month. The Los Angeles area meeting will be May 17 from 10am-3pm. Angela Simon and
Jacquie Thompson volunteered to go.
Legislative Action – Donna Grogan
No report. However, Chas Cowell has received information that there is a bill being considered
by the legislature that will require Boards of Trustees to devote at least 2 meetings to discussing
issues brought up if an Academic Senate votes no confidence.
Curriculum Committee – Janet Young
No report.
Calendar Committee – Lyman Hong
No report.
Academic Technology Committee – Pete Marcoux
There has been no meeting. ATC will discuss the list of software for the next fiscal year.
Hopefully ATC will create a 2-year list and will present their findings to PBC. This year’s
funding has been spent and the software purchases have begun to arrive. Links to the ATC
website can be found at http://www.elcamino.edu/faculty/sdever . Included is a discussion of
hybrid, distance education, and other classification of courses.
Unfinished Business
Confidentiality Statement
Angela Simon was introduced to discuss the confidentiality statement (page B19) and the nondiscrimination procedure (pp. B1-B18). A summary of previous discussions about the
confidentiality statement was given, including the close senate vote that rejected the
confidentiality statement and the proposal to allow candidates to sign a waiver if they wish to
receive feedback about their candidacy. Ms. Simon noted that the union was willing to follow
senate’s recommendations on these matters, although they weren’t particularly happy about
having a confidentiality statement. She also noted and was very concerned that the statement is
currently being used, despite it never having been approved by anyone.
Tom Lew noted that Leo Middleton’s office believes we need a confidentiality statement. Chas
Cowell added that senate passed a procedure that allows for one, but now we need that statement.
He wants to see what comments the union had about it. Ms. Simon reported that the union’s
comments were quite similar to the senate’s.
Lance Widman asked what is in the confidentiality statement that is new or that is not a current
unspoken expectation. He believes the statement is standard, and that giving the feedback that we
have discussed compromises the confidentiality and integrity of the hiring process.
Mike Stupy asked what the penalty is to violating the confidentiality act. The answer is that the
violator “may be subject to discipline and liability” (i.e. civil lawsuits). The issue of familiarity
with candidates is still ill-defined.
David Vakil said that he sees no reason why anyone should prefer having the statement read
aloud and then having this acknowledged by being done written down rather than having people
sign a statement. If the statement is signed, people have a better opportunity to see and
understand what they are being held to. In either scenario, the committee members are equally
responsible for the conditions stated in the confidentiality statement.
Non-discrimination Procedures
Angela Simon, in a discussion with Leo Middleton, asked what current practice he followed
regarding this non-discrimination procedure. She wrote down his response and drafted a
procedure to match what he said. The document on page B19 does not reflect current practice,
even though the proposed document was written by Leo himself. She has also written numerous
revisions to the proposed document, but none of them were implemented. Jacquie Thompson
asked if the currently practiced policy is legal, and Lance Widman reported that Leo says it is
backed by Title 5. Mr. Widman noted that even small revisions proposed by him or Ms. Simon,
such as including “classified staff” in the list of employees who should be protected from
discrimination, were not implemented. One critical issue that is missing from the current draft
are statements about the rights of the accused. Mr. Widman noted that the school has received a
letter from the chancellor saying that the policy is designed to facilitate the accuser, not the
accused.
New Business
Accreditation Standards
Regarding accreditation standards, JS reported on the materials starting on page E15. Of
particular note are the following items:
 the last one on p. E19 regarding identifying SLOs,
 page E20 item 2b noting that the institution should rely on faculty for “measurable”
student learning outcomes (though this may be changed to “observable” SLOs per the
state senate’s recommendation),
 p. E21 item g: exams can be used to measure SLOs,
 p. E29 item c: SLOs may be part of evaluations (though this is not currently in our
contract),
 p. E53 contains a good definition of SLOs and several other useful definitions,
 p. E54 at the bottom “avoiding misuse of evidence” is the senate’s point of view that
safeguards academic freedom by creating a blind process to prevent identifying specific
students or faculty,
 p. E56 notes that subcommittees should be headed by faculty, and the bulleted items at
the bottom of the page are important, including awarding of release time for such
committee work. Expect committees to form next fall.
 p. E61, #4 reiterates release time.
o It was asked if this is in our contract, and the answer was that similar things are.
 P. E61 #5 is also noteworthy
 P. E61 #8 says there should be no canned SLOs
 P. E67 #4 says that local senates should adopt a statement of philosophy about SLOs.
o Note that our SLO committee includes Janet Young and Julie Stewart.
o Justin Bagnall asked if students can serve on this committee. They cannot.
o He also asked if UC and CSU use SLOs. JS replied that they are unhappy this is
being forced on them. We all have 2 years to prepare.
Chas Cowell noted that there are 3 proposed resolutions by the state senate on page E70 and
asked if any were incorporated. JS replied that there were many resolutions, including those, and
some were incorporated.
Mid-term Accreditation Report
Chas Cowell noted, in regards to recommendation #4 (page E11 in the March 1 packet) that
contrary to what is written, College Council is not the final step in the consultation process.
Presumably cabinet comes later. This should be added to the written process.
Announcements
Meeting was adjourned at 1:49pm. I know, it’s amazing. AND that’s 2 meetings in a row with
minutes only 4 pages long! Something foul is afoot.