Approved 5-5-2010
Meeting Minutes for Wednesday, April 28, 2010
West CampusBC 214, 3:00 – 5:00 pm
Members Present: Ignacio Alarcón (President), Barbara Bell, Cindy Bower, Gary Carroll, Steve DaVega, Monica DiVito, Stephanie Durfor, Esther Frankel, Jack Friedlander, Tom Garey, Kathy Molloy, Marcy Moore, David Morris, Kenley Neufeld, Dean Nevins, Kathy O’Connor, Ana María Ygualt, Oscar Zavala
Members Excused: Armando Arias,Stan Bursten,Atty Garfinkel, David Gilbert
Guest(s): Cornelia Alsheimer-Barthel, Allison Curtis, Steve Massetti, Paul McGarry, Gail Raynolds, Diane Rodriguez-Kiino, Kyle Rokes (The Channels), Jan Schultz, Janet Shapiro, Pat Stark, Joe Sullivan, Laurie Vasquez, Nina Warner, Marsha Wright
1.0Call to Order
1.1Public CommentsA request was received from Marsha Wright, EOPS/Care Director
Marsha Wright: On behalf of EOPS/Care, DSPS, and Matriculation, we wanted to let you know our appreciation of your support while we’re dealing with the budget woes. It’s very heartwarming to know that there is collaboration and understanding and that we have the common goals of serving our students. On behalf of all of us we wanted to say thank you! You may not be aware that in addition to the resources that have been identified for the categorical programs it is our belief now that President Andreea Serban is asking the Foundation to help support some of the budget.
Kathy Molloy asked what the status of Foundation funds would be, in relation to the Academic Senate’s resolution regardingthe possibility of additional state money available for categorical programs. A decision would have to be considered at CPC to determine what the categorical needs are first and how these funds would be distributed. It doesn’t sound like this applies to funds through the Foundation. It sounds like Foundation funds would be going into the general fund budget.
Ignacio confirmedwhat Marsha had said, that President Serban had asked the Foundation to have as priority to fundraise for categorical programs. Kathy Molloy asked if they would actually get the money? And Marsha Wright elaborated on this question, asking if this would be in addition to the current funding. Jack Friedlander stated that the Foundation had agreed to make categoricals a top priority, including PSS and MESA. They have not raised a nickel yet. Kathy Molloy asked if that money would go to the categoricals as it is raised for them, or would this be part of the backfill for the District? Jack Friedlander said that what the Foundation would raise would offset the general fund.
Dean Nevins agreed, reminding everyone that what was discussed at CPC, as proposed by the President, that the proposed backfill from the District was meant to be a hard cap.Kathy Molloy expressed that the Senate’s position was about state money coming in, not about any other money.
Jack Friedlander said that whatever action CPC takes on the budget for categoricals, PSS and the President approves, then what the Foundation raises is over and above that. The idea was that we had to make these cuts and what we want to do with the Foundation money is over and above the general funding. It’s not a zero sum game; the Foundation raises $50,000 and the General Fund does not go down $50,000. What CPC decides is what CPC decides and as the Foundation tries to raise money that becomes added to that and does not become a substitute.
1.2 Approval of Agenda– so approved
1.3 Approval of Minutes, April 14, 2010
M/S/C To approve the April 14, 2010 meeting minutes (Frankel/Zavala)
2.0Information
2.1 Last Academic Senate Meeting Spring 2010, May 12
Ignacio announced that a Senate meetingmay be neededonMay 5,instead of theregularly scheduled Steering Committee meeting, given the size of our agenda.
2.2 Academic Policies Committee Has Approved Revised Evaluation Surveysfrom Biology
Department
Kathy Molloy expressed that she thought these forms were excellent, and several senators agreed.
2.3 BP 5075, AP 5075 Course Adds, Drops, Withdrawals Policy and Procedures
Allison Curtis, said the policy and procedures had already been brought to the BPAP Committee, and that consultation was taking place. Allison explained the added content identified in the handout for BP 5075 the corresponding procedures AP 5075was the stricken language taken from the existing SBCC 5025 policy. BP/AP 5075 also includes updated deadline information and some existing provisions that were in BP 5043 that parse out what should really be an administrative procedure that has now been put into AP 5075.
3.0 Action
3.1 Evaluation of Governance Survey
Diane Rodriguez-Kiino, explained that she is serving on the CPC ad-hoc committee, with Dean Nevins and Ignacio Alarcón,to evaluate participatory governance at SBCC. The survey that she is administering to the Senate today wasdesigned tohelp address, over the next few months, some questions about governance committees’goals and achievements, scope and effectiveness, and information and communication flow. The results from the survey will be used to help address the evaluation of participatory governance identified in the College Plan and the Institutional Self Study. CPC has reviewed and approved the survey and Diane said she is currently in the process of administering the survey to a number of committees on campus, beginning with the Academic Senate.The ad-hoc committee will report their findings to CPC.
Barbara Bell expressed her dissatisfaction about conducting the survey in this manner, instead of giving respondents time to complete it. Diane Rodriguez-Kiino answered that we needed to make sure that all committees would complete the survey under similar circumstances. Ignacio said that the question had come up in the committee, and it was felt that giving survey in a different way would very likely result in a lower ratio of respondents. Barbara Bell said that she thought we were emphasizing quantity and not quality of responses.
3.2 Workgroup to Address Instructional Support Allocations Process (Readers,
OIAs) with Dean Alice Scharper
Ignacio referred to his announcement that was sent out via email about this workgroup, asking for faculty interested and available, to participate in reviewing the process that has been in place and what CTL has proposed. Those that responded were: Bonnie Chavez, Larry Friessen, Bronwen Moore, Francisco Rodriguez, Jan Schultz, Joe White and Kathy O’Connor, It seems to be a good mix of people who teach online and those who do not. Obvious absences are Fine Arts and the fully online HIT/CIM program.
M/S/C To approve the Workgroup with Bonnie Chavez, Larry Friessen, Bronwen Moore, Francisco Rodriguez, Jan Schultz, Joe White and Kathy O’Connor, and possibly someone from Fine Arts and HIT/CIM to Address Instructional Support Allocations Process for Readers and OIAs (Neufeld/Garey)
3.3 ITC Proposal forDistrict Computer Technology Provisioning Procedure
Laurie Vasquez reported that some additions have been made to the Provisioning Procedure for clarification to answer what happens to those areas on campus where one user needs more than one computer. Laurie gave some examples of faculty with exceptional needs where the standard configuration is below what they are actually using, e.g. FRC. We come across areas on campus that have more than one computer per person, which does not fall under the written standards. We need to make sure thatthe needs are being met within the department and without wasting time in when providing instructors with needed materials.
Esther Frankel wanted to know what the exceptions would be and that it would be preferable to have them defined according to multiple categories e.g. configurations. Groups of such users could be identified.Kenley Neufeld said that he understood the paragraph to mean that once you have received approval as an exception, it is an exception when it is refreshed. Laurie stated that this was correct.
Dean Nevins stated that it seemed as though we were treating groups that use computers as central to their education mission the same as those that use computers as auxiliary in their educational mission, and that seems to be the root of the whole problem.
Jack Friedlander said that a possible solution would be to have the provisioning procedureinclude a separate section to address those exceptions. To put it in writing would help. Jan Schultz said that there are the obvious groups but there are also the less obvious groups. Kenley Neufeld said that this was precisely the reason why a list was not included in the document; there are too many exceptions. The document is primarily for IT to use when they do their refresh process.Esther Frankel said that she would still like ITC to try and identify the exceptions. Laurie said that she would need some help drafting the proposed statement for the exceptional user information before the last ITC meeting of the semester.
4.0Hearing/Discussion
4.1 Joe Sullivan,Vice President, Business Services, Attends Regarding
RenovationProjects Timeline, Swing Space Usage
Joe Sullivan handed out the Kick-Off agendas for the User Groups in the Humanities and Campus Center Improvement Projects. Joe began by reminding everyone that the timelines are active and need frequent updates, as projects never go exactly as scheduled. This is what we are facing with Drama/Music. The project was scheduled to end the first week in August and according to our latest information it will now be the first week in January. We are trying to follow that timeline because we need to begin the Humanities project immediately thereafter.
Joe explained the process, and that so far we have not mapped out the swing space for Humanities. What needs to happen is to identity a room as a classroom and what takes place in that classroom. We have asked the deans to work with their user groups to find out about their classrooms: how many hours a day do you have instruction there, what type of instruction do you have there, how many seats do you need, what kind of equipment do you need, what do you need to run your classroom. We take that information and then try and map it to the swing space we already have. A big difficulty: the CampusCenter and Humanities combined need to fit into 36,000 square feet of swing space, and the Humanities building alone is that large. We will need to look at programs and utilization and see what we can do to make things work.
The goal: we want to do as little renovation of the swing space as possible. By putting similar types of users in the same rooms, Modern Languages in one area and Art in another. Art studios need sinks, so we look for labs that already have sinks; silkscreen printing can go into an area that was previously used as a Chemistry lab, for example. We then sit down with the user groups and talk about how to get everyone into those spaces and what it would take.
Jack Friedlander said that a question in people’s minds, and with less than four weeks of school left, iswhen would the user groups/departments get to look at the analysis of the swing space use? Joe Sullivan said they hoped to have this done before the end of the spring semester. The information will be available for distribution in electronic format, Web page, Xythos, email. The reality is that we cannot begin work until Drama/Music is moved out to renovate that space to move others in. The earliest is after the fall semester starts and the second week in September when the mapping needs to be finalized. Any renovation will need drawings and engineers: classroom to classroom and office to office are easy. Alterations for special needs classrooms will take time and people will need to be involved. A very important note: every dollar used on the swing space will be taken out of the appropriate Humanities or CampusCenter building budget. Working with Drama/Music was great, we have learned a lot and their active participation helped save millions of dollars.
About the time frame, Joe said that there are always unforeseen situations and contingencies are built in and in some cases not enough. The reason the end date is so ambiguous is because until the project has been designed we can’t begin to determine how long the project might take. It’s way too early to even project precisely how long it will take.
Jack Friedlander said another question often asked is why do we have to do both projects, Humanities and the CampusCenter at the same time? Joe responded that we have to do both projects at the same time is because when we initially took the first part of the Measure V bond we were still thinking that we were going ahead with the SoMA building. Our portion of that coming from Measure V was $20 million. The issue is that we have to spend 85% of those funds within three years, that is by November 2011. If that doesn’t happen, we would have to pay high arbitrage fees. We want to avoid that, by getting those funds spent within the timeframe. This meant putting the Humanities and the CampusCenter together at the same time.
What is the most effective way for faculty members to participate in the process so they can be engaged and know what is happening in their area? User group meetings are being scheduled; if you want to be a part of a user group you need to contact your dean. If you would just like to be on the user group email list contact Steve Massetti.
Parking and using space for construction was discussed. Joe said that is always under consideration. We are looking to use more unpaved areas to minimize the impact on parking. For construction it is easier to use paved space. The fact is that this is construction and it will impact the campus. Noise can be a factor and that is always taken into consideration. The noisiest work is scheduled at a higher cost for weekends or off hours. If the work can be scheduled for Friday afternoons we do that.
Nina Warner asked if the scope of the work on the Humanities building had been updated from the time of their first users group meeting. At that time no plumbing was included in the scope, and there are significant plumbing needs that are being identified.
Patricia Stark asked about the budget for the CampusCenter. Would the $4.8m be enough, and is there room to modify it. Joe Sullivan said that we approach projects with the mindset that the budget is the budget. Some good news is that Drama/Music is significantly under budget. On the other hand, the bridge project was significantly over budget. Before a project begins, the architect will present a list of things that absolutely have to be done, a list of things they recommend and then a list of things that would be nice to have and hopefully there will be enough in the budget to cover all of the absolutely “have to” priorities. We will have a much better idea of where we are budgetwise in a few months. We need to get through the first phase of each project before we can get an initial budget estimate from the architect. Once they get into the design, during the second phase, we will be able to get a better cost estimate. In actuality we won’t know until it goes out to bid.
Ignacio thanked Joe Sullivan and Steve Massetti for their time in coming to discuss these items with the Senate.
4.2 Instructors’ Association Proposal for Modification of SBCC/IA Contract
“Article 13” and Academic Senate/Instructors’ Association Agreement
Tom Garey said the information on the agenda was brought to the Steering Committee meeting of April 21, and to the Instructors’ Association Plenary on Friday, April 23rd. Tom said that his handout today was in response to questions that were brought up at the Plenary. Tom explained theInstructors’Association Board is asking that the Senate and the IA enter into a discussion to reassess and reframe our relationship. We do not wish to change the nature of our relationship with the Senate. Our concern is that over the years the IA has waived rights to negotiate certain things and we have been told that we can no longer waive our responsibilities for those things. What we need to do is find a way, and work within the system we have now, as best we can, to cover that shortcoming. What we would like to do is create a task group of IA Board members and members of the Academic Senate who are interested to develop a strategy and a new liaison agreement as well as new language for Article 13 of the contract which is where the IA has waived its rights to negotiate certain things. Actions in the Senate in policy matters relative to things that we have waived in the past can continue to be handled in that way but ultimately can become part of the contract and therefore, the IA would have a means of enforcing that part of the contract.