/ CosumnesRiverCollege
Academic Senate
April 13, 2007
Minutes
(approved April 27)

The meeting convened at 12:30 p.m.

Present: C. Carter, M. Duffy, G. Hodgkinson, H. Jackson, E. Lopez, G. Martin, M.McClurg-MacKinnon, M. Moore, J. Nye, J. Oliver, R. Oxman, T. Parker, L. Sneed, N. Wellsfry.

Guests: , W. Fishman, M. Geissler, K. Harrell and Closed Captioner, C. Hooper, J. Newman, A. Rothschild, S. Scott,G. Torres, C. Van Patten

Announcements: Welcome and Introductions

  • Earth Day is next week. Exhibits from 10-1, with special speaker from 1-2.
  • An Inconvenient Truth will be shown in LRC 104 on Wed. April 20th at 1.
  • Voices of Iraq movie was shown yesterday for Exploring Global Cultures Series and will be donated to library.
  • General introductions of all present at beginning.

ACTION ITEMS

  • Minutes from March 23, 2007 approved with addition of attendance by consensus.
  • Approval of the Agenda by consensus

BRIEF REPORTS

President’s Report—Hodgkinson

  • Celia is looking for faculty appointments to Basic Skills Initiative group. This will be a state wide group that meets for first time at SierraCollege on May 11. Works nicely with our Ed Initiative tasks. Jamey would be interested. Please share the need with constituency.
  • Campus Fountain project will be done by Fall 07.
  • Technology Security document has been sent to us from District, and qualified faculty are being asked to review and offer feedback.
  • Gala Fundraiser is this Saturday. Please come support our students!
  • VPA Impressions group is being established.
  • LRCCD Board meeting will be held at CRC April 18th, at 5:30 p.m. Any interested faculty are welcome to attend and observe.

Assessment Discussion Update—Hodgkinson

  • There will be a face to face meeting on April 27th from 10-12, location TBA

Ed Initiative Update—Nye

  • Task force is getting ready to preview presentation before going through it at District office. Brad Brazil has put together a great PowerPoint presentation.

Affects of Compressed Calendar on Committee Work—Committee Chairs

  • Science faculty need to be able to attend Senate meetings on Fridays. Please make sure this will work. Science faculty are concerned about representation at shared governance in general. Their teaching and lab blocks are now longer and meet more frequently,so they must be very strategic in order to make meetings. Their classes will start by 7:15 a.m., and run until after 10 p.m.
  • Budget committee discussed the calendar, and sees no known impacts on budget from Compressed Calendar.
  • College Hour would really help shared governance. Other campuses find a way and perhaps the facilities argument should be revisited. This may take some time to implement.
  • Workload issue should be considered.
  • Athletics will not be able to participate in sports if they are out of class.
  • Does Senate have a stance on how to handle possible drops in enrollment due to new scheduling? New times, different blocking, may cause some courses to not get offered. Senate should perhaps craft a statement to the effect that we don’t want this to happen. Rick Schubert will take on drafting the document. Any downward movement in enrollment during this transition should not be evidence for course discontinuance.
  • Professional Development activities may be affected as well by longer teaching time during the day. Question was asked if have added more flex days to accommodate that, and it was answered that no, we have not.

Elections Committee Update—Davenport

  • There were over 80 ballots cast and the new President will be Jamey Nye, VP will be Marjorie Duffy, and Senate Secretary will be Gary Martin. Current officers will continue their roles until the last meeting of the semester.

Academic Integrity Committee Update/CBE form—Schubert

  • Senate previously had approved changes to the Credit by Exam by the Academic Integrity Committee Task force; Markus Geissler chaired this task force. Changes were made to align CBE form with academic integrity policies, and to address administrative policy issues that have presented challenges with processing the form. Georgine thanks the committee for their work.
  • Other updates from Rick. The committee has many issues to discuss, and is trying to cull out the most realistic items to work on which would be most beneficial for the college. Student Learning Outcome 5d – Student ethical development and EdCode requires certain standards in teaching. They plan to have an early draft of an Honor Code by the fall.

Unit Planning—Hodgkinson for Wellsfry

  • The document has been sent to the Deans, so we should all be getting a chance to have input. The form may not have all the items that we need, such as long term planning. It has gone out in some divisions to work on, and there was discussion about whether it was the final version or a draft.
  • It is suggested that we speak generally and inclusively in requests for budget funding. COB is a 2 year cycle, and the Unit Planning document is a 3 year cycle depending on when it is submitted. Perhaps we could prognosticate a dollar range that we might need to spend in the years for which we are planning, rather than create specific line items.
  • It may be difficult to project more than a few years out for purchasing, and the form should be focused on planning leaving specific dollar amounts to the budget forms and the budget process. Current concerns with the Unit Plan process as drafted are that budget requests which have not been specifically named on the formmay not be granted.
  • Not having dollar amounts on the planning form might allow more freedom for future purchasing decisions to be based on a criterion of student success and instructional viability. Still, as a planning tool, we should try to anticipate upcoming needs, both for purchases and faculty hires.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

Plenary Resolutions

Resolution 9.03 – Assessment is something we should be very concerned about because of the time frame built in for only 7 months. Statewide Assessment would be a disaster. This resolution is weakly trying to deal with it by asking for more time. This should be strengthened to include whether or not we want the statewide assessments at all. Chuck Van Patten is encouraged to write an amendment to the resolution to strengthen it. Perhaps there is a lot of confusion over this issue –it has developed quite recently. We should make sure that some complaint gets moved forward, and that it doesn’t get vetoed so no statement moves forward. We must be proactive – the Board of Governor’s is expecting a report in November of 2007. Georgine would be happy to carry an amendment. Gary Martin, Marlo McClurg-Makinnon, David Aagard, and Linda Sneed will help Chuck.

1.03 S07 - Appointment of Faculty Reps -- NO

This reads as a statewide senate power grab -- that they assume they have the sole authority to appoint faculty to statewide boards. They have neither the expertise nor contacts to reasonably do this. They also assume that representatives will carry out the "will of the senate." I've been involved inmany groups that are dynamic discussion venues to develop a position or thoughts on an issue -- no one needs to go in with the Senate's preconceived perceptions. (discussions about accreditation issues are a significant case in point).

10.02 S07 - Creative Writing -- NO

Too restrictive -- we don't need a new discipline

10.03 S07 - Art History-- NO

Too restrictive -- we don't need a new discipline

10.07 S078 - Global/International Studies

Too restrictive -- we don't need a new discipline; has this really developed to the point that we need a new discipline -- it only exists at one CSU.

10.05 S07 - Yoga-- NO

10.05 S07 - Commercial Dance -- NO

Need? Dilutes the current requirements without adequate justification

15.01 S07 -- Intersegmental Collaboration

A continuation of the Senate power grab in 1.03 S07 -- We shouldn't need the Senate's approval for every committee formed in the State -- especially since the Statewide senate has insufficient knowledge/expertise regarding the breadth of disciplines in community colleges.

Title 5

The Careers and Technology Division has some concerns about the Title 5 Curriculum Proposal, specifically section 55003.b:

(3) The process, including levels of scrutiny, for reviewing prerequisites and co requisites to assure that they remain necessary and appropriate. These processes shall provide that at least once each six years all prerequisites and co requisites established by the district shall be reviewed, except that prerequisites and co requisites for vocational courses or programs shall be reviewed every two years. These processes shall also provide for the periodic review of advisories on recommended preparation.

. A prerequisite or co requisites need not be so scrutinized until it is reviewed pursuant to subdivision (b) (3) if:

(1) it is required by statute or regulation; or

(2) it is part of a closely-related lecture-laboratory course pairing within a discipline; or

(3) it is required by four-year institutions.

Based on this language, vocational ed programs are being singled out and are required to conduct curriculum review of their pre- and co requisites every two years (vs. every 6 years of other core classes). This language specifically holds vocational ed programs to a different standard (than the other classes). It is understood that these reviews include full documentation and data collection and analysis; not a simple task. We agree that requisites should be reviewed and that EVERY program/class should be required to review the pre- and co requisites every six years.We are requesting that the standardshould be the same for everyone.

However, it should also be understood that most vocational education programs have outside/national accreditation agencies and advisory committees that they have to respond to. The accreditation agencies require that programs review their curriculum/pre- co requisites and that it is done on a regular basis and with input from the advisory committees (2-3 years, depending on the program.) This is to address the relevancy of classes, student success, etc. This occurs without the restrictions specifically written out in Title 5. By placing a requirement in Title 5, this process becomes too restrictive and encumbering and may even border on the impingement of academic freedom.

The other issue is "the periodic review of advisories on the recommended preparation." We are assuming that this is referring to the Program Advisory Committee in which matter experts (e.g. such as the instructors) will be included. However, based on this language, it is unclear. Title 5 Proposal also states that verification for advisories are left up to district policy. This is of concern. Advisories should be established by the subject matter experts (such as our instructors). Advisories do not limit student enrollment or access.

Campus Culture Faculty Forum

  • Georgine asked if anyone was opposed to hosting a faculty forum on the topic for the campus at large. What would be the goal of this type of forum, and logistics should be determined: who is invited, who hosts, etc.
  • The forum goals might be to discuss structural features or current policies of the college which have direct or indirect results that don’t sufficiently reflect faculty interests.
  • Should not be a venue for specific concerns, specific occasions, or specific parties. Should not be personalized so it doesn’t become divisive.
  • Make sure it does not become slanderous to any individuals.
  • Structural or policy issues on the campus insufficiently reflective of faculty perception of student interests.
  • Faculty input at the forum should not be recorded as individuals, but rather phrased “As the faculty sees it….”This way, any result is not dismissible as 3rd party testimony. Culture of campus affects everyone, not just faculty and students, but also staff. .
  • Perhaps address the issue of “respect for profession” regardless of the profession.
  • Perhaps discuss definition ofwhat culture really is. Perhaps an exploration of it as a group would help. We have gotten much bigger. Should we create a basis for what we mean when we say culture?
  • Organizational structure would be helpful to define as well.
  • Culture apparently is shifting and changing, and as such, perhaps there is more movement toward grievance and complaint, or to educate administrators who are unaware of shared governance. How to state that we have moved away from shared governance in many ways, and how to ask for us to move back toward it? Faculty success is impacted, as well as faculty satisfaction in work environment.
  • Define what faculty culture is. What does it mean to be a member of the faculty here at CRC? An opportunity to let people participate in coming up with the definitions.
  • It would probably be helpful to start with a draft idea that could be shared.
  • Looking for transparency in decision making. Some policies don’t allow for that, and perhaps we could see this come out as a result.
  • Role recognition is important, with proper and effective functioning in your roles. Recognizing when your actions impact other’s roles (academic and professional) and refraining from doing those things would be important. Address current structural and policy problems – because they negatively affect function in your campus role.
  • The forum needs to be narrow enough to manage, but open ended enough to invite discussion.
  • Ground rules such as not getting personal or slanderous. The power in it should be to allow people to express emotions and get heard. Without that we will not get unified and therefore not bind together. There is a lot of faith in this faculty that we will say the right things so we can really uncover what the problem is.
  • There are both general processes and specific issues.
  • Labor rights might be a phrase that is included to see if Union can better serve the faculty in dealing with these issues.
  • Perhaps the forum should be set up as a discussion first, before directing the topics.
  • Materials such as information on what constitutes matters academic and professional, we provide ground rules, we include a statement that we include open, honest, and fair dialog. We might have one type of guiding question such as how do we see our various roles; what is the definition of culture at CRC; part of the forum should be open mic where any sort of issue is acceptable. Let people talk first. Ask how might Union and Senate better serve constituency?
  • Logistical issues: Should happen before the end of the semester. Flex Days was considered to be too long from now, and it was commented that Flex has often been co-opted by Administration. It should be at least a two hour event. If there is big interest, consider making it a repeated event. Food might be good to draw people. Set aside April 27that the end of the Senate meeting. Hold it from 1:30-3:30 in Forum or whenever the room is available. We would love to get participation from 70% of the faculty; include evening and adjunct. Senate and Union will co-host. Consider having a follow-up to the Forum at Flex days. If you can’t come, please prepare any comments you would like to have brought forward and send to your Senator or a member of the Executive Team. Senators should talk about it with constituents to get interest up.
  • Hopefully whatever this brings forward will spill over into the whole campus to include campus.
  • Encourage staff to possibly have their own forum.

Future Discussion Items:

  • When counselors are present we may consider looking at campus response to suspicion of violence against individuals and whether faculty are following state laws for mandatory reporting and confidentiality.
  • Regarding New Disciplines in the resolutions, how do we create a policy or governing philosophy on what disciplines are acceptable? These are more like special interest areas. Perhaps Georgine would give a preface to voting no that makes a statement along these lines at Plenary session.

TO DO:

Chuck Van Patten with assistance of Linda Sneed, Gary Martin, Marlo McClurg-Makinnon, and David Aagard, will draft a response to the Resolution 9.03 for Georgine to carry to Plenary session next week.

Georgine will procure a room for the Forum.

ADJOURNMENT at 2:13 p.m.

Next Meeting:April 27, 2007, Location TBA

Minutes respectfully submitted by Marjorie Duffy