DCC/Pgcmeeting Summary

Approved

WEST VALLEY COLLEGE

DCC/PGCMeeting Summary

Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 2:30 –5:00 p.m.

Club Room

ATTENDEES

NAME / REPRESENTING / PGC / DCC / Pr. / NAME / REPRESENTING / PGC / DCC / Pr.
Diane Hurd / AAS / x / Kuni Hay / VP Instruction / x
Heidi Diamond / Business / x / Victoria Hindes / VP Student Services / x
Chris Cryer / Fine Arts / x / Fred Chow / Dean-Tech & Info. / x
Leigh Burrill / Language Arts / x / Stephanie Kashima / Dean, Inst.& Stu. Success / x
Joan Worley / Physical Education / x / Frank Kobayashi / Dean, Career Ed / x
Rebecca Wong / Science & Math / x / Lance Shoemaker / Academic Senate / x
Carol Pavan / Student Services / x / Pat Fenton / VP Admin Services / x
Steve Juarez / Social Sciences / x / David Colonia / Associated Students Gov. / x
Indicates Voting Member of PGC or DCC
Guests: Mel Pritchard,Eric Pape, John Hannigan, Rod Pavao and Sonia McVey

DCC:

1. Welcome and Check in

Kuni welcomed the committee.

Additions to the agenda: none

Meeting minutes from4/10/13 willbe sent before next meeting.

1. DCC and Academic Senate meeting: Presentation by Communications Dept. re: new faculty hiring request

John Hannigan presented his Dept. request for a new faculty and talked about the reasons and rationalfortheir request and the importance ofhaving enough faculty in his department. He also provided data about the dept. retention and how successful this program has been (written request was sent to the DCC/Academic senate members via e-mail prior to the meeting).

After John’s presentation there were some questions:

Will the Dept. be able to complete their department work responsibilities if they don’t get a new faculty? John expressed that the Dept. will be able to complete the job regardless but they may have to cancel some sections since they will not have enough faculty to fill them with the associate faculty.

Is this the right time to submit a request for new faculty hiring? John indicated that this is the best time to request it.

After John’s presentation and he responded to all the questions, the members were agreed that the new faculty ranking sheets should be submitted on 4/19/13by 3pm via email to Frank, Kuni and Sonia. All membershave relevant information as a blank new FT Faculty Request Score Sheet and Comm. Studies most recent report have been sent to all members via email.

Steve requested to email him the last Biology new faculty requestinformation. Kuni will email him the requested documentation.

1. FAIT organizational change discussion:

Brief information about the FAIT Team (Four Focus Area Interdisciplinary Team) was introduced as a reminder. In order for the West Valley College to reduce $1.5 M in 14-15, there needed to be a mechanism where as much College involvement as possible was ensured through the participatory governance process. College Council created a sub-committee/task force to identify such process and the committee developed a FAIT Team that includes four primary groups: Instruction, Student Services, Administrative Structure, and Administrative Services and Athletics. The team was created to collect data and dialog with subject-matter experts in different areas. Kuni has emailed these four teams data summary to the committee members to review prior to this meeting.

To accomplish and respond to FY14-15reduction, the FAIT committee was encouraged to ask the hard questions about what areas can be modified to save money even though the whole concept is not only to save money but also to restructure the college functioning. In the last College Council retreat session, they tried to figure out how to approach it and establish the process based on the subcommittee’s vision and therefore 4 areas were created. These areas are: Administrative Structure, College Administrative Services and Athletics, Instruction, and Student Services. Each committee was charged to generate questions that are difficult to ask and perhaps never have been asked in this manner. In addition, the committee was charged to obtain data and information in response to their questions from the subject-matter experts in each subject area. All four committees are to come up with each area recommendations to College Council by May 2013 as preliminary recommendations.

The teams and their members were named and Kuni expressed that anyone could join these teams at any time. Kuni further explained the reason why the instructional FAIT team wanted to ask DCC/PGC their questions. DCC/PGC are comprised of representation from each participatory governance members; therefore, it was the best way to solicit members’ thoughts, opinions, and feedback on the questions generated. Kuni informed the DCC/PGC that the FAIT team will use 2-3 sessions to gather as much information as possible.

The committee went over all the questions from the FAIT Data Summary for Administrative Structure and debriefed. They have been over lapping questions among the teams and therefore it has been decided to go over those questions at the same time that way everyone will be answered and time will be used more effectively.

Kuni informed that the preliminary report will go to the College Council on 4/25 (pending confirmation).

The idea is to go over the questions, review them and collect data. The members went over the questions under the area of instruction and decided what they can discuss in this meeting at this time.

It was requested to add the numerical data to these summaries so all areas can be examined as well. Pat is working on those reports and they will be added to the reports as soon as the information is gathered.

Lance, as part of the FAIT Instructional team member, started with the first question (should we have a Dean’s structure as opposed to the Division Chairs structure)and the history of this question being discussed in 2009. Lance also expressed that the previous president wanted to getrid ofthe Division Chair format and implementthe Deans’ structure. Division Council members expressed that the Division Chairs are powerless per the ACE contract as far as being able to make enrollment related decisions although they are charged to make decisions on behalf of the VPI and of the college. There was also a comment made that even though Division Chair may assume 50% of pseudo-administrative responsibilities, there have not been adequate and appropriate trainingspecific to leadership and administrative responsibilities available in the past. Lance stated that Administrators in the recent years have advocated for the Deans structure. Division Chairs are elected by their department peers but asked to make decisions on behalf of the college.

Kuni responded to Lance’s comment that she doesn’t think that this administration has pushed that idea, maybe the previous administration had a different agenda but they are very pleased with PGC and DCC’s leadership work.Victoria supported Kuni’s comment and mentioned that Kuni has been very supportiveand validated all the work that they do. She also mentioned that they are talking about seeing all the cases without considering the cost savings but if this subject keeps coming back it maybe needs to be considered the cost savings for each department.

Lance also clarified that Lori’s desire to implement the Dean’s structure didn’t have anything to do with the people in the Division Chair position or current administration.

Lance asked for Stephanie’s input regarding MC situation of having more deans and less division chairs. Stephanie mentioned that in the budget crisis of 2009, there was a review of the reassigned time and it was a decision to pull the reassigned time down to the contractually agreed up on 12.335 for Division Chairs and Department Chairs at MC. There were 10 Division Chair and over 30 Dept. Chairs. Also at that time there was a consolidation of some programs and therefore it was reviewed of how many Div. and Dept. Chairs were needed. MC discussionsled to fewer Division and Department chairs. In order to address the ACCJC recommendation that the college alter its organizational structure to ensure appropriate oversight and management of the college, the college president, Harriett Robles, proposed a reclassification of 2 positions, the Library Director and the Director of Community Ed, to be Dean positions as this provided more administrative oversight with relatively little financial cost. Rob mentioned that there are 4 deans and severaldirectors. Joan commented that Physical EducationDepartment was approached to be the first to change to dean’s structurebut they declined. They felt since this position answers directly to the President, they will feel obligated to do what the President requests therefore they will lose their academic freedom.

Kuni shared her observation that the challenge may also reside in the conflict between the Division Chairs and Department Chairs. As the current example where we need 900+ FTES for summer 2013 to meet the 12-13 FTES goal, department chairs are not coming forth to add core and demanding sections to offer although Division Chairs have been asking them to add. WVC administration has entrusted the leadership in DCs and Department chairs to develop schedule to meet our college’s FTES with the parameters/priorities set by PGC and DCC but the Department chairs may not be fully exercising their power and responsibilities on behalf of the college.

Lance asked what are the tools that can be given to Division Chairs to make things happen when they are powerless.

Leigh expressed her opinion about Kuni’s comment on Dept. not reaching their FTES. In her mind, there are no reasons why an English class had to be cancelled for low enrollment and the English Dept. is a good example for not reaching their goal not because they didn’t want too but because only one student was enrolled and she thinks that the reason for that it was because the word didn’t get out on time. The English Dept. is a big example of willing to add sections but the Dept. Chairs are concerned about opening more sections and not having the enrollment numbers and ending up with cancelling the class. An associate instructor was very upset because her class was cancelled and therefore Dept. Chairs want to ensure that the faculty will teach and they should not only be thinking about opening sections but to support by more marketing. Leigh also mentioned that DeAnza marketing budget is way bigger compared with West Valley.

Stephanie mentioned that the input she has received from Department Chairs is that if they don’t have thesureness that those classes will get filled then they wouldn’t agree to increase the sections. Her opinion is that it is not a good approach andthey should just say no. The idea is to go for it and try it.

Steve commented that we are competing with other colleges around for the same students and it may not be just marketing or opening more sections but students needing more options. Steve also mentioned that Division Chairs have the power to approve a schedule. It is in the ACE contract that Div. Chairs havethe power to approve of classes with Administration’s support.

Rod read ACE Contract Appendix D #12 for Division Chair Duties and Responsibilities: Coordinate the preparation and approve of all class schedules, including initial room assignments by posted deadlines;

Div. Chair has the final say. He also read the Department Chair Duties and Responsibilities: Prepare and implement a WSCH/FTE Plan for the department. Prepare all schedules for the dept./program and assist the Div. Chair in final preparation of the published schedule. He expressed that Div. and Dept. Chairs worked together but the final say comes from the Div. Chairs.

Kuni mentioned thatWVC’s current administration’s practice has been that they try to have good communication and be very supportive and if students or Department Chairs come to Administrators first, theyalways try to channel and re-route them back to the Division Chairs so they won’t by pass the Division Chairs.

Stephanie expressed that when she was a Division Chair over the Business and Technology Division at Mission College, there were numerous serious performance issues in her area that she had to address in regard to faculty in the division. She recognized the inherent conflict in having a faculty member, elected to a temporary position by his/her peers, in the role of having to be in an administrative role over those peers. This structure makes it very difficult for Division Chairs to make difficult and unpopular, but ethically appropriate decisions on behalf of the college.

Victoria expressed that in any position we will have to make decisions that everyone may not like it but it has to be done and that is part of leadership.

Lance gave his opinion that it is very hard for Div. Chair to force Dept. Chairs to do things when they know that they will be peers again after theirDivision Chair period is over.

Kuni wanted to emphasize that Administration supports the Division and Department Chairs decisions and responsibilities. Kuni emphasized that her personal and professional practice is not about exercising poweror the position. She will never abuse her position of power but to use it appropriately in her leadership position. Therefore, in terms of disciplining faculty, she’d go through the process prescribed in the policy, getting DC’s input and information to proceed.

LeighmentionedthatCensus roster reminders are a big example. Because Div. chairs requested from Dept. Chairs and Dept. chairs take the request for faculty but nothing comes out of it.

Steve also suggested that Administration can get more involved for disciplinary act like when missing census rosters, grades, etc. and they can write notes for their files.

Steve also mentioned that as Div. Chair they don’t have the power to write up faculty, they can recommend it but the VP will have to do the disciplinary actions.

Lance suggested that these topics should be agendized for further discussion. He asked the group how the Dean liaison structure for us is working – multiple Division Chairs responded by saying that they worked very well with the Deans and that the liaison system is working very positively. He also mentioned that the current system is working and changing the structure may not be effective or cost saving. He also mentioned that improving the system instead of changing it would be better.

Leigh agreed with Lance, the system is not broken but needs improvement and makes it more effective.

Rod wanted to add that this is not a shared governance matter.

Kuni acknowledged that the challenge of being DCC has been expressed in the last couple of years by DCs that they are “stuck in the middle”. She commented that one thing that may be missing as part of support for the DC to do Division Chairs’ work is to provide relevant and appropriate leadership training. Kuni mentioned that she has consistently developed and created for Deans in the past is to receive proper training for value-based leadership. Lance shared that the past administration attempted to provide leadership training called LDA. His experience at the LDA was a fiasco as the training was focused on business model and had nothing to do with Education. He suggested that if there is going to be training, it should be directly relevant toWVC Academic Leadership Training and not generic leadership training.

Kuni agreedwith Lance and mentioned that she will never provide a generic training but to customize leadership training for this group with their input being the base for it.

Stephanie shared her personal experience about working with Kuni. She shared that her experience with her is nothing but collaborative and inclusivework and that it is based on two-way feedback based working relationship. She emphasized the fact that top-down leadership or relationship will not come out of Kuni’s leadership style as people may already know. She further expressed that there are other colleges where the Dean structure is highly supportive of faculty. A Senate President from another college expressed to her once that she would do anything for her Dean because she knew that her Dean would do anything for her. It was a mutually supportive professional relationship and this is how this structure can operate.

FTEF information was requested per department and division so that we could have discussion about possible consolidation of departments and divisions but they were not there so it is pending for next week.

Discussion regarding the faculty assigned time was supported by information provided by Pat: FY11-12 19.178=$560,835 (reassign and benefits). Reassigned time is only for Div. and Dept. Chairs. Currently, we are roughly 6.8 FTES over 12.355 and $200,000+ in red in this area.