Meeting Minutes for Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Approved 7-14-2010

Meeting Minutes for Wednesday, May 12, 2010

West Campus, BC 214,3:00 – 5:00 pm

Members Present: Ignacio Alarcón (President), Barbara Bell, Cindy Bower, Stan Bursten,Gary Carroll, Monica DiVito, Esther Frankel, Jack Friedlander, Tom Garey, Atty Garfinkel, David Gilbert, Kathy Molloy, Marcy Moore, David Morris, Kenley Neufeld, Dean Nevins, Kathy O’Connor, Ana María Ygualt, Oscar Zavala

Members Excused: Armando Arias, Steve DaVega, Stephanie Durfor

Guest(s):Elizabeth Bowman, Susan Broderick, Jim Chesher, Jim Doohan, Zac Estrada (The Channels), Adam Green, Doug Hersh, Gail Reynolds, Diane Rodriguez-Kiino, Jan Schultz, Marilynn Spaventa, Laurie Vasquez, Mike Young

1.0Call to Order

1.1 Public Comments – no request received

1.2 Approval of Agenda– so approved w/added action item 5.2

1.3 Approval of Minutes, May 5, 2010w/IA/Bezemek letters

M/S/C To approve the meeting minutes of May 5, 2010(Bursten/Carroll) 1 abstention

2.0 Information
2.1 Academic Senate Summer Meeting will Be Held July 14, 3:00 – 5:00 pm

Ignacio Alarcón announced the summer senate meeting will be held Wednesday, July 14, in the BusinessCommunicationsBuilding(BC214), 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.

2.2 Congratulations to Atty Garfinkel on Being Elected President of SSCCC’s
Region 6 for the Year 2010 – 2011

Ignacio Alarcón announced that in addition to being elected chair for Region VI, Atty will also serve as student President on the Community College Higher Education Commission and Atty will also be SBCC’s 20010-2011 Student Senate President.

2.3 A Big Thank You to Outgoing Senators: Monica DiVito, Kathy Molloy, Marcy
Moore, Ana María Ygualt, Oscar Zavala. Welcome Incoming Senators: Susan
Broderick, Gail Reynolds, Jan Schultz, Lou Spaventa

Ignacio announced the namesof the newly elected senators, some were in attendance, and then he thanked the senators whose terms have ended for their service and participation. Tom Garey added that Steve DaVega was reelected to serve as Second Senator for the Fine Arts Division.

3.0 Action

3.1 BP 4022 and AP 4022 Sabbatical Leaves Policy and Procedures (pg. 20-25)

M/S/C Move to approve BP 4022 and AP 4022 Sabbatical Leaves Policy and Procedures (Frankel/Nevins)

3.2 BP 4490 Academic Title Procedure (pg.26)

Kenley Neufeld said he wanted to update his last Liaison report, in particular his response to aquestion David Morris asked about the opinion of AP members on the OR vs AND statement regarding Emeritus Faculty status. At the time Kenley said that he sensed there was not consensus on the language.That was not a correct statement. That answer, Kenley said, was based on a meeting that he had attended. However, AP met again, discussed this in further detail and were unanimous in the draft they sent to the Senate. Kenley said he is changing the statement he made at the last Senate meeting because he, as AP Liaison, did not want to misspeak AP’s sentiments on this matter.

Ignacio said, what we have before us today is not what Academic Policies Committee proposed. What AP has proposed is diametrically opposite to what is on the agenda today in terms of howretired faculty are to be recommended for emeritus status. AP recommended using the OR statement for advancement of a retiree to emeritus status: Department Chair OR Dean OR Executive Vice President. The Senate hadpreviously recommended using the AND statement, and this is what is in version put forward today.

Kathy O’Connor said it was Senate President Peter Haslund who recommended emeritus should be based on something more than longevity, and that it shouldn’t be granted automatically. Kathy suggested going back to the drawing board and reworking the policy. Jack Friedlander added that AP’s and the existing policy focus on process, when maybe we should be looking at the more substantive issue. Maybe it should be twenty years coupled with a resolution from the Academic Senate identifying individual accomplishments to give a title more significance than just the title and a “GoldPass.” This wouldn’t negate AP’s proposal; it would just add something more substantive to the title.

Susan Broderick explained that the timeline begins from whenever you become a regular full time faculty and technically that would be a minimum of 14 years of service to the college; that still may not be considered enough but she wanted to clarify this. Susan said she could not speak for each member on AP but the main concern was the AND vs OR. Susan said she thought that the committee would be fine with changing the number of years, and that this was never the issue. We just didn’t look at that because it was already policy. The issue with the AND vs OR is that there are some departments where there is ongoing discord and could make it difficult for someone who had some accomplishments in their service to the college to be advanced to emeritus status. If the current department chair had an issue it might be a problem with promoting a specific faculty to emeritus status. That was the key issue of making it an OR rather than an AND. Ignacio said that Peter Haslund’s point, when he brought this up to the Senate, was that the department should have a primary role in promoting a faculty person to emeritus status. Ignacio said that the AP proposal could potentially leave the department totally out of the loop. Susan believed the Dean and EVP would want to consult with the department chair first, and not act independently. Stan Bursten said that he understood the number of years requirement to be a minimum requirement. He said that it seemed that for department chairs, deans and the EVP other accomplishments achieved could be taken into consideration and that will discriminate between people who have been here a long time that have not done anything special and people who have been here a short amount of time that have accomplished a substantial amount of extraordinary work and have really contributed in a great way to the college. So the ten year minimum seems reasonable. Stan also suggested changing “…emeritus status shall be conferred…” to “may be conferred.” Jack expressed that using the AND version would mean that everyone would have to give their input. Tom Garey asked if maybe the Academic Senate could also recommend someone for emeritus. Ignacio reiterated that the gist of the new proposal would be to have the department be the main source for a nomination for emeritus status. Marcy Moore asked about the current policy and procedure. Jack said that this may not be a stated procedure, but that it is the way this has occurred over the past 24 years: HRLA gets a list of retired faculty, they verify the ten years’ service and send a note to Jack asking if there is any problem with any of the individuals receiving the title of emeritus. Once it is established thatthere are no issues, they are given emeritus status, and have their name put in the catalog. Gary Carroll said this makes Jack be the bad guy and puts everything on his shoulders. The presumption is everyone will be on the list unless the EVP says no. The new proposal would turn it over to other people. Jack said the way it is now, an issue is so rare that he thinks this is a non-issue. Gary Carroll added that then it seems to be only a rubber stamp. Jack agreed that this is the way things were as of now.

David Morris suggested that we lift this from the procedure as written, approve the remainder of the procedure and bring this up as an item for a separate discussion and then made a motion.

M/S To move that we extract the emeritus status paragraph and propose it as an individual item for discussion at our next Senate meeting (Morris/Garey)

Dean Nevins said thathe had a problem with this; if you slice out part of it, it’s not the proposed procedure anymore. I don’t think we can do that. David Morris said we have an existing procedure; Jack just described it. This would be the existing procedure. All we would be saying is we are not ready to change the existing procedure. Leave it as status quo. Ignacio said that the only change would be to eliminate the “Lecturer”designation, and use “Instructor” instead. Gary Carroll suggested removing the comma in item “c”, so it reads: “c. Experience in summer school teaching and part-time continuing education teaching do notapply to titles higher than that of Instructor”, and to remove both commas from item “d”, so it reads: “d. Sabbatical leave time and teaching experience at a school of nursing do apply.” Gary asked if item f should be there at all. Jack suggested it could follow item “a.” Kathy O’Connor suggested that “f “ should be part of item “a” itself. The new item “a” would read: “a. Credit college teaching only will apply. The number of units completed will be those approved by the Academic PoliciesCommittee.”

Cindy Bower reported on her research about item “d”’s reference to schools of nursing. She said it should probably be removed because it refers to situations dating back to 1965 that have no relevance anymore. The new item “d” would simply read: “d. Sabbatical leave time applies.”

M/S/C To postpone action and bring an updated/reworked copy based on the suggestions/ recommendations that have been made (Neufeld/Carroll)

3.3 ITC Proposal forDistrict Computer Technology Provisioning Procedure

Laurie Vasquez explained that because the proposed changes were presented at the last DTC meeting of the semester a vote would not take place until Fall2010. Laurie said additions were made to the first paragraph, and the last two paragraphs of the document are completely new with specific language to represent the areas of specialization where a non-standard replacement configuration may be needed. Jack Friedlander noted that where it states “In the event ITC and DTC cannot come to a resolution the request will be forwarded to CPC and the Academic Senate for resolution” he said the Academic Senate is represented on CPC so the unresolved exception requests should go to the Senate before going to CPC. Kathy O’Connor added that the goal is to have any situation resolved before CPC.

Determining the notification order of the exceptions memo; coordinating the procedure/process with what is stated in the first paragraph; as well as typos and language and redundancies were discussed. A decision needs to be made about which of the last two paragraphs should be used in the document orconsolidate both paragraphs. The first paragraph identifies exceptionsfor anyone, including labs, and the added paragraphs were created to identify those departments with exceptions. Jack Friedlander suggested using the term ‘Educational Programs department’ when identifying where the exceptions were to be made. It was also discussed where the document should be housed. Tom Garey suggested that it should be kept with the refresh information.

3.4Elections

(a1)Academic Senate Vice President 2010 - 2011

Ignacio confirmed: by acclamation of senators, Kenley Neufeld was elected to be Academic Senate Vice President for Academic year F2010-S2011.

M/S/C To nominate Kenley Neufeld for Academic Senate Vice President (Molloy/Nevins)

(a2)Academic Senate – CPC Liaison 2010 – 2011

Ignacio explained the current Academic Senate liaison at CPC is Tom Garey. That position is open for election every year. Tom Garey and Kathy O’Connor have expressed their intention to run for this position. Oscar wanted to hear a statement from each candidate. He said that this is a critical position, particularly this coming year, given the challenges to categorical programs. He said he admired both Tom and Kathy, and that he wanted to choose a person who knew the issues well and would voice the opinions of faculty.

Tom Garey stated that either one of Kathy and himwould offer continuity and great competence on the issues. Tom added that Kathy already attends CPC meetings regularly and is well ingrained in the system as he himself is well ingrained in the system. Tom said that he didn’t see a substantive difference. Kathy O’Connor said that she felt the same way. She said that Tom and her have been around a long time and that she attends CPC meetings all the time and I enjoys it. Kathy said that CPC is a really important committee on this College, with a lot of influence. Kathy said she felt she would do a good job representing the faculty at CPC, as Tom does also.David Morris asked Kathy if she intended to continue attending CPC even if she was not the representative elected by Senate. Kathy responded that this was not a fair question, and that it should have no bearing on how senators voted.

Ballots were handed out and senators were asked to write the name of their candidate of choice on the ballot and by a narrow margin Tom Garey was reelected to serve as Academic Senate liaison to CPC.

(b) Approval of Dean Nevins as Karolyn Hanna’s Replacement on the
Board Policies and Administrative Procedures Committee upon Karolyn’s Retirement

M/S/C To approve the appointment of Dean Nevins to serve on the BPAP committee (Neufeld/Garey)

4.0 Reports

4.1 President Report

4.2 CPC Liaison Report /IA Liaison Report (Tom Garey/Dean Nevins)

CPC has had no meeting since the Senate last met. Tom reported that the IA has put together their list of IA Board members of the task group to discuss Article 13, and that Gary Carroll will be settingup/coordinating meetings between the Senate and IA task group members. Tom said that his own participation on the task group will be somewhat limited due to knee surgery this summer.

4.3 Liaison Reports

4.3.1 Armando Arias

4.3.2 Kenley Neufeld

Kenley Neufeld reported that the Facilities Safety/Security and Parking committee met and that they received the injury report. To date, there have been reported: 3 classified and 4 faculty. All weredue to slips and falls. The stadium project will be starting within a week. There is still a question of where the fence will go and whether or not the stadium seating will be open or not accessible. On Sunday, May 15 there will be a semi-pro basketball game held in the Sports Pavilion. Kenley said the library has received calls asking where the Luria Press and ConferenceCenter are located. There may be some confusion as time goes on with both facilities named Luria. All scheduling for the Luria Press and ConferenceCenter will be done through the President’s office. Ignacio added that CPC will be meeting in the Luria conference room beginning next academic year. Kenley said a study of the Medical Parking spots had been made and Security might be willing to open up some of the designated spots. Kenley will take to the committee the issues on skateboarders and the unhealthy bird droppings in the parking structure.

Kenley reported P&R began reviewing Board Policy 4160 regarding adding/eliminating/changing instructional programs. P&R recommends that CAC also review BP 4160. P&R is also reviewing Board Policy 4560 which identifies college facilities priorities. For the Program Review process P&R plans to develop a glossary of definitions and parameters. This will be done in consultation with the Superintendent/President, the Executive Vice President and CPC. The result, with examples, should be beneficial for department chairs during the Program Review process. The templates for the Program Review are being reworked with the help of IT programmers.

Kenley reported that AP began discussing/reviewing BP 2100 (Faculty Evaluation) and that this discussion would continue in the Fall.

4.3.3 Kathy O’Connor

Kathy O’Connor reported that although CAC has wrapped up their work for the semester, a workgroup will continue to work on CurricUNET. Most importantly: if anyone should have any glitches or problems occurring in CurricUNET to please report them to her so that over the summer they can be worked out. On the curriculum submittal deadline: No final date has been set – an announcement will be made; the probable/most likely deadline for submittals will be during Inservice week.

4.4 Partnership for Student Success (Kathy Molloy)

Kathy Molloy said that a few people have talked to her about some misinformation that’s coming out about the funding for programs in general and the use of the reserves. Kathy thinks it is important that Division Reps make it clear to their divisions that the only thing funded out of the reserves is the backfill for categorical programs. Whatever funding the readers and PSS received all came from the bookstore fund and there were already some existing funds for PSS through a supplement and from the Foundation. It seems to have caused some confusion and she wanted to make sure that everyone was clear on what has been funded and the source of the funds.

4.5 EVP Report (Jack Friedlander)

Jack reported on the process and timeline for when departments could begin ordering routine equipment. Jack reiterated what Tom had reported; that at the last meeting CPC took action and approved the resource requests that were ranked “1”as well as the budget amount for the routine equipment requests that would go into department budgets. Jack said that questions he has been getting from deans and department chairs refer to when they would know how much money is actually in their budget for next year and when would they be able to see a spreadsheet to confirm what items were or not approved by CPC? Jack said that by mid June Leslie Griffin should be sending out a list of all approved resource request items. Departments would not be able to order items until July 1. A unique number will be assigned to all the approved items so that the resource requests can be tracked to our planning process. When departments get their 2010-2011 budgets,these will show how much money was allocated to their routine equipment account. Depending on the nature of the item(s) requested some money may be allocated to the department’s supplies account.