FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES: January 31, 2002
3:00pm To 5:00pm, Room 1804

Present:   Nancy A. Brown, David Balogh, Laura Thompson-Dickie, Jay Jackson, Lisa Feintech, Robin McFarland, Belita Magee, Letitia Scott-Curtis, Mary Ellen Sullivan, Chuck Smith, Eric Carter, Steve Cox, Rory O’Brien, Helene Jara, Kim Belliveau, Jake Siskin, Marcy Alancraig, Nancy K. Brown, Sylvia Winder

Guests:     Nancy Fetterman, Bill Hill, Debora Bone, Robin Sherman, Karen Groppi, Paul Graham, Terry Fetterman, Fred Castillo, Louis Compoginis

Staff:         Bronze Freeman

I.    Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 3:12pm. Jay Jackson and Nancy K. Brown were introduced as the new Senators. The guests were introduced.

II.   Minutes
Page 4, Final Grades, third sentence, add an “s” to pluralize “student”. All Senators were in favor of receiving copies of the minutes via e-mail. Marcy moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Chuck seconded the motion. The minutes were approved.

III. Reports
  A. Treasury Report- Nancy A. Brown
To quote Steve Hodges, “we have money”.
  B. State Academic Spring Plannery- Nancy A. Brown
The deadline to apply for Staff Development Funds is February 8, 2002. The conference will be held from April 4 to April 6 at the San Francisco Westin Hotel. The topic of the conference will be “Equity and Accreditation”; this will be a joint meeting with the CIO’s. Nancy has forms for any faculty that are interested in attending.
C.  Budget- David Balogh
This may be the last year that funds will be available for conferences using Flex funds as the Governor’s January budget has cut this category severely.

IV. Action
  A. Committee Assignments- David Balogh
1. David received an e-mail from Mark Lui requesting 5 faculty readers of applications for the Hayward Award for excellence in teaching. Please contact David if you are interested.

2. David has not heard of any faculty wanting to leave any of the standing committees. The website is up to date; including the list of committees and members.

3. Ad Hoc Committee- Marcy Alancraig
Marcy would like to add an ad hoc committee “Learner Outcomes and Accreditation Committee”. Both Marcy and Rory have volunteered to serve on the committee. Marcy moved to add an ad hoc committee. Chuck seconded the motion. The Senate was in favor of the committee. Marcy and Rory will co-chair the committee and will recruit for members.

4. The Union has asked for volunteers to look at the design of the student evaluation surveys and provide input. Robin McFarland volunteered.

5.  Hiring Process- David Balogh
David provided an update report from last spring regarding the hiring process. Instruction has decided to keep the hiring in the fall, which is contrary to the Senate’s recommendation of a spring process; this issue had been discussed with the Division Chairs.

6. Remuneration- David Balogh
David recommended that Faculty Senate Presidents receive an 11-month contract; past practice has been for the President to receive ½ time release during the year and 3 units during the summer. Mary Ellen Sullivan questioned, regarding units, if that would be a deterrent to future applicants for the position. David responded that the units would not be affected and would like to offer some options.

Nancy Fetterman clarified that the President would not be on campus for 11 months, but would be on call for 12 months with a 1-month compensation for the extra time that the President spends during the 10 months. David replied in the affirmative. Nancy K. Brown was in favor of the remuneration.

The senate supports the proposal and has authorized the senate to explore the issue with the college administration.

V.  Old Business
 A. AACJC’s proposed Accreditation Standards- Nancy A. Brown
Nancy distributed copies of the ASCCC executive summary, letter and commentary regarding Draft A of proposed Accreditation Standards, as well as copies of the ASCCC analysis and commentary on AACJC proposed Draft A and a copy of Draft A.

Nancy noted the difficulties with the proposed timeline. Draft B will be distributed in mid-February. The second non-public hearing will be held in March; the final draft will be discussed at the June commission. Training on the new Accreditation standards will take place in Fall 2002.

Nancy discussed the Academic Senate concerns, including the baseline; the old baseline looked at resources. Those resources are shrinking and there will not be enough money to do the research on Learner Outcomes. There is no money to hire the people to do the research. Acquired testing is also being looked at; schools will be asked to set the Learner Outcomes at the program, course and institutional level. Nancy commented on the “desultory” format of the hearing in San Francisco. Nancy noted that Claire will, “move on faculty evaluations. Most of the Vice Presidents want to do this on a program level”. Marcy remarked that the movement is one of “non-trust”.  Nancy noted a paper by Peter Ewing which contains several proposals for Accreditation; Nancy will show this paper to Marcy.

Marcy noted the Cap Stone Courses, citing English as an example. All English majors would be required to take a final incorporating all that they had learned. Mary Ellen Sullivan commented on the possibility of losing all AA and AS Degrees.  Terry Fetterman noted that Cap Stone Courses would be easy to create.

David remarked on the presumption that community colleges were being asked to do this, when 4-year institutions were not. Fred Castillo noted that the US Department gives power to the Accreditation Agency. Both Nancy A. Brown and Marcy concurred that this issue should not be taken to the Legislature. Marcy clarified that in Maryland it was legislated what constitutes a passing grade and faculty are required to take Learner Outcome courses. Fred noted that an industrial model is being placed on education.

Marcy remarked that her idea of an outcome is, “what a student does, not what they know. Learner Outcomes is not a course objective and has to be able to be assessed. A lot of things cannot be assessed, for example “caring” in Nursing”. Marcy noted that Claire had foreseen this movement and started a Learner Outcome model three years ago for faculty to “play with”.

Helene questioned how students with learning difficulties would be assessed. Marcy clarified that in English, there is an independent assessment of portfolios, not a department assessment. Letitia note that the difficulties of assessing English 100 had been discussed in the Division when the assessment of the portfolios was done and an agreement could not be reached on certain types of students. Marcy commented that faculty would want the process to be “easy and quantitative” if faculty evaluations were based on this. Nancy remarked on the possibility of SAT’s being replaced with achievement testing. Marcy questioned if WASC would cover state universities. Nancy responded in the affirmative.

Marcy suggested looking at other school models until the next round of Accreditation in 5 years. Nancy remarked that the ad hoc committee would need to consider how to store the massive amounts of research data. Marcy commented that she would like a course, not program level, for more control. Terry stated he uses educational research as an example for his classes of what not to do. Nancy K. Brown commented that Cabrillo College has good results; this process would benefit parts of teaching, but would not benefit the students and faculty.

Nancy clarified that Cap Stone Courses would affect student units for graduation. Laura Thompson-Dickie noted her concern that those graduated students that had entered industry would have their Cap Stone grade used against them.

  B. Learner Outcomes Institute- Marcy Alancraig
Marcy commented on the Learner Outcome Institute that will be held June 10 through June 20, Monday to Thursday from 9:00am to 4:00pm at the Sesnon House. Faculty will receive a stipend for attending and Marcy will ask for volunteers for the ad hoc committee during this time. The Institute will look at what will help in the classroom and an opportunity for faculty to share experiences.

Nancy would like the Division representatives to go to their Divisions and discuss this issue after having read the standards. No final decision will be made until the standards are adopted in June. “Please try to select volunteers to serve on the committee”.

VI. New Business
 A. Spring session conference requests
      This issue will be discussed at a later meeting.

VII. Reports Continued
       There were none.

VIII. Agenda Building
         There were no items

IX.   Items From the Floor
There were no concerns expressed regarding the reorganization and DART. Four of the new Deans have been announced: Mary Cardenas, Kathy Welch, Dan Martinez and Wanda Garner.

X.    Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:26pm.
 


FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES: February 12, 2002
3:00pm to 5:00pm, Room 111

Present:     Nancy A. Brown, David Balogh, Kim Belliveau, Laura Thompson- Dickie, Marcy Alancraig, Sylvia Winder, Robin McFarland, Belita Magee, Jay Jackson, David Sullivan, Lisa Feintech, Letitia Scott-Curtis, Nancy K. Brown, Mary Ellen Sullivan, Helene Jara, Claudia Close

Guests:      Claire Biancalana, Dale Attias, Shirley Flores-Munoz, Josh Pastor, Laura Ridenour

Staff:          Bronze Freeman

I.      Call to Order
        The meeting was called to order at 3:05pm.

II.     Minutes
         David noted that an incorrect version of the minutes had been distributed; some corrections had not been included. On Page 1, Reports, B, replace “Western” with “Westin” to read the, “San Francisco Westin Hotel”. Marcy moved to accept the revised minutes. Belita seconded the motion. The revised minutes were adopted.

III.    Reports
    A. Women’s Studies Remapped
  This item was added to the agenda. Shirley Flores-Munoz noted that Women’s Studies 39 had been offered once 10 years ago, and had not been mapped. Shirley would like WS39 mapped and would like to continue with the hiring process; Shirley distributed a handout listing all the departments that WS39 would be mapped to. Claire suggested mapping WS39 to Interdisciplinary Studies. Shirley concurred. Marcy moved to map WS39 to Interdisciplinary Studies. Mary Ellen seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Claire will take this to the March Board; all Social Science references will be deleted, as the Division no longer exists. Hiring can take place before the Board meeting.

    B. Union and Senate Cooperation
   Debora Bone has asked that the Faculty Senate and CCFT work more closely together. Nancy A. will attend the CCFT meeting on February 25.  Nancy said that she believes that the CCFT had misunderstood the role of the Senate in the reorganization. Nancy A. noted that the Faculty Senate has “perhaps” been invited to a CCFT party at Michael Mangin’s house on April 20th at 3:30pm.

    C. Budget Cuts
         Nancy A. had attended the Board meeting last night. Pegi Ard had noted that the budget for next year would be out of balance by $1,010,000.00.

    D. DART
         David Balogh noted that the Faculty Senate and CCFT have had plenty of time to meet and discuss the reorganization. David complimented Helene Jara for her representation for SEIU. David expressed surprise at CCFT’s being “unaware” of Senate actions, when CCFT members are present on DART and the Senate.

David noted some of the original members of DART were Classified and would have expressed any concerns directly to SEIU. David also noted that both Gary Marcoccia and Linda Kitz were CCFT representatives on DART and could have expressed any concerns to CCFT.

Sylvia noted that frustration had been expressed at CCFT regarding the lack of communication. Nancy A. argued that it was “unfair to say the Faculty Senate was not informative”; the Union had been on DART since the beginning, Faculty Senate had not been invited until five months later. Nancy A. had opposed the Pilot Division and had made public her letters to Claire and Claire’s responses regarding the matter; Michael Mangin had made the motion to merge the old HAS division with the social Sciences division.
Nancy will attend the CCFT meeting on the 25th. David felt the misunderstanding was unfortunate and clarification was needed.

     E. SEIU Update- Helen Jara
1. Stephanie Stainback has signed off on DART; the hiring timing is “tricky”
2. SEIU is concerned with the cost of healthcare for next year at 11%.
3. SEIU is working with the college regarding the Cafeteria.
Nancy noted that she had spoken with Stephanie regarding the hiring process. The Coordinators would be hired first, then the Fiscal Analysts, and then the IDA’s to allow those who did not get Coordinator positions time to apply for other positions. The one problem is the timing. Claire noted the value of using the “experience with the process in the Division Office” from the pilot Division. Claire noted the hiring process needs to be mapped out carefully to protect the existing Division Assistants, but the timing needs to be watched.

     F. Student Senate- Josh Pastor
The first, and last event of the semester will be held on February 14; it will be a combination Valentines Day and Welcome Back. Several types of games have been ordered, including Sumo Wrestling; it was suggested that Claire and Nancy A square off. The Administration had approved music from 11:00am to 1:00pm; Gabe Gutierrez is in the process of notifying those faculty that would be affected by the music. Claire offered to relocate Marcy’s class during that time. Food will be sold. Nancy noted that she was “glad the student’s had solved the cafeteria problem”.

    G. Curriculum Committee- Claudia Close
1. The first meeting made it through administrative review. There will be two meetings: February 20, at 3pm in Room 31,3 and February 27 at 3pm in Room 313.
2. There is a “glitch” in Fiesta. When courses are copied, the number of students defaults to 30. Please be aware of this, and correct accordingly. Dale noted that this field is from the old HP System. Dale needs to know the correct number of students for Datatel. Dale noted that the number of students only needs to be set correctly the first time, after that it will remain set. Claire will include this information in an Instruction Note.
3. There are two new forms in Fiesta as of two weeks ago. Pre/coreq and Engl 100/ Reading 100 exist in Fiesta, and can be completed in Fiesta. The old forms will still be accepted this semester; Fiesta will be mandated for next semester. Nancy noted the importance of the timing and suggested setting a due date to the Division Coordinator that would allow enough time for the Division Committee on Curriculum to process the proposals. . David Balogh reminded the Senate that who would serve on the sub-committees is determined by State’s Rights.
 
 
 
 

IV.     Action
          There were no action items.

V.      Old Business
The numbering will be inverted.
     D. Accreditation- Feedback from the Divisions.
Marcy noted the English Division is “deeply concerned”. The ad hoc committee will be comprised of Marcy, Stan Rushworth, Rory O’Brien, Nancy A. Brown, Terry Fetterman, Belita Magee and Diane Putnam. A representative is needed from Occupation, as well as from Student Services and the old VAPA Division. David Balogh noted the one day Assessment Workshop on March 1st; please notify Bronze in the Instruction Office if you are interested in attending. The ad hoc committee will tentatively meet next Wednesday, from 3pm to 5pm. Claire noted that Learner Outcomes needs to be separated from Assessment. Nancy remarked on the need to know the direction of the focus (program, course, etc.) and how assessment would fold into the course syllabi. .

Nancy remarked on the need for a statement listing the specifics after Draft B is released. Marcy will take care of the statement. Claire expressed her hope that the statement regarding, “college determines student outcomes” would remain.

     C. Staffing Process- Refer to BP and AR 5105
Nancy distributed copies and asked the Senate to read BP 5105 and the supporting AR,   keeping in mind possible changes in the Division Chairs and Dean’s roles due to the reorganization. Nancy clarified that BP is Board Policy and AR is Administrative Regulation; Claire suggested simply calling them Board Policies.

Nancy noted that if there is no longer a DC, “if it doesn’t exist, it is difficult to perform the duties”. Nancy asked that instead of just striking out the DC terminology, the Senate might consider if the new Deans should perform the same duties as the DC in the hiring process.

Nancy also distributed copies of the “Fifteenth Advisory on Proposition 209 and Update on Connerly v. State Personnel Board” from the Chancellor’s Office. On October 24th, Nancy had written an email to Ralph Black, attorney for the Chancellor’s Office, asking if the current process mandating “minority” representation would be allowed under the changes, specifically requesting clarification of, “The presence of a person who is available to monitor for potential discrimination is appropriate”. Nancy noted that this needs to be worked on. Nancy had sent another email to Ralph Black with the same query and also asked if there would be a voting member minority member on each committee.

Marcy noted the importance of understanding the difference between equity and diversity. Kim added that if there were two equal candidates, the underrepresented candidate would receive the job. Nancy noted the Connerly Decision negates this. Kim suggested informing José Millan of this to be used in his training of the Search and Selection Chairs. Nancy clarified that “diversity” could not be part of a job description. Claire suggested inviting José Millan to a Senate meeting, as all Search and Selection Committee Chairs had to receive training. David Balogh remarked that José needed to address whether or not past practice is now illegal under 209. Nancy noted that the committee would not be allowed to know the ethnicity of the candidates. Per Nancy K. suggestion, Nancy A. will place this information on the campus Knowitall Drive. José Millan will be invited to a Senate meeting and the recommendations regarding changes to the Board Policy and Administrative Regulations will be considered.

    A. Curriculum Process and Duties of Division Subcommittees.
Copies of the proposal created by Senators and Staff members were distributed. Marcy commented that she liked the checklist format for Occupational and Vocational, but noted the absence of Transfer 200 and Occupation 100. Claire suggested adding non-credit, non-degree and basic skills. Claudia will incorporate the suggestions. Regarding basic skills, Claire suggested that Claudia use the language from Title 5.

Claudia noted the deliberate omission of fiscal at the Division level to prevent “turf wars”; if the class could be articulated and met student needs, and met all the criteria then it would be a good class to teach. Claudia will devise a report that could be attached stating that recommendations could be made to proposals, but proposals could not be stopped from going forward. Claire questioned how to explain to faculty that their course was approved, but may not be offered without language regarding cost review in the proposal. Claudia responded that faculty understand unit allocation and need to be trained on the process. Claire noted that baseline function needed to be put in the Curriculum Handbook; language needs to be written stating that if a course were proposed, it may not be offered and if the course is listed in the Catalog, but not offered for 2 years, it will be deleted or inactivated. There was Senate general agreement to David Balogh’s suggestion to incorporate a statement to look at cost up front on the front page of Fiesta. Nancy thanked Dale Attias for all her hard work with Fiesta.

Claire noted that agreement amongst department members needed to be included. Claudia expressed her concern with time restraints with all the reviews. Claudia noted past practice had not required discipline review; if this is to be considered, then the logistics of getting discipline review in a timely manner must be looked at. David Balogh stated that current practice requires that all curriculum is voted on from the Divisions. David suggested, as there are only 2 Curriculum meetings, that both old and new courses be available on Fiesta for faculty self-investigation. Nancy suggested that the Senate read the Academic Senate Best Practices; copies had been distributed at a prior meeting.

Claire stressed the responsibility of all faculty in the discipline and department deciding what is best for the students, instead of one person. In response to Claire’s comment on the requirement for certificated and degrees from Occupational Programs going through the Curriculum Committee, and having been proposed by faculty, Claudia proposed a solution. The program planning will be done once a year during Flex Week as part of the department meeting duties, at this point they would do their curriculum review. Claire noted that as the vote is at the Curriculum Committee, it would need to be written that program changes have to be reviewed and approved during program planning. Nancy remarked that this would be done when the AR is looked at. Claire remarked that it would be inappropriate for the Divisions to judge what would be appropriate in a department, but noted the importance of department review at the Division sub-committees. Mary Ellen will confer with Claudia regarding the concerns.

Marcy noted that if Accreditation requires that this be done at the program level, this issue would become important. Nancy A. suggested starting with placing program level into the checklist. David A suggested adding “confer with colleagues” to the suggested statement on the front page of Fiesta. Claudia suggested looking at the difference between what will be asked of the campus wide committee and asked of the sub-committees. Claudia will bring a new list back to the Senate.
 
 

     B. BP and AR 3120
Copies were distributed. Claire had met with four of the five new Deans, and had discussed that new Divisions meet soon to discuss curriculum and “get to know each other”.

Nancy pointed out the changes that had been made to the AR/BP. Lisa commented that all faculty in her Division are aware of when meetings are scheduled to discuss changes and have an opportunity to be present. Claudia questioned how to assure discipline consensus if a hierarchy exists.

On the first page of AR3120, add, “of Instruction” to read “The non voting member is the Vice President of Instruction”. In the second bolded text, replace “could” with “shall” and “were” with “are” to read “The Curriculum Committee meeting shall not convene unless all the division representatives are present”. The third section of bolded text, Nancy will include the suggested language. Please provide further input to Nancy. Nancy will make the changes and bring this item back to the Senate.

VI.     New Business
     A. Plagiarism Detection
Liz Curtis from the Student Senate had spoken with Nancy and requested a notice on all syllabi stating that faculty would be using the detection software. The Student Senate’s concerns were that students were being trapped. Faculty Senators asked why students should be notified. Laura Ridenour, from the Student Senate, suggested not notifying students, but informing them that plagiarism would not be tolerated.

David suggested a more general statement. Laura concurred, suggesting a statement that would inform students that faculty have methods for checking plagiarism. Mary Ellen questioned if this would go in the Catalog under Student’s Rights and Responsibilities. Letitia clarified for Laura that paraphrasing would be an issue discussed between a teacher and a student. The bigger issue would be students who buy or use papers written by others. David noted the importance of using quotes and citations. Nancy A. remarked that the method for notifying students would be left to faculty discretion.

VII.   Reports Continued
There were no further reports.

VIII.  Agenda Building
1. AR/BP 3120 will be voted on. Nancy will send the changes to Bronze.
2. Senate membership in the reorganization. Robin would like to discuss the At Large Senators.
3. Drop Slips- Marcy noted faculty no longer receive them. David Balogh suggested that Senators take this issue to their Divisions regarding notification. Nancy A. noted that only about 77 Datatel Ports exist; there are not enough for all faculty to have access.

IX.    Items From the Floor
Nancy K. would like all Senators to have nameplates for meetings. Nancy A. suggested that all Senators introduce themselves at the next meeting.

X.     Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00pm.

FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES: February 26, 2002
3:00pm To 5:00pm, Room 1804

Present:       Nancy A. Brown, David Balogh, Rory O’Brien, Lisa Feintech, Steve Hodges, Mary Ellen Sullivan, Helene Jara, Topsy Smalley, Belita Magee, Eric Carter, Kim Belliveau, Jay Jackson, Claudia Close, Letitia Scott-Curtis, Nancy K. Brown, Marcy Alancraig

 

Guests:        Claire Biancalana, Debora Bone, Dale Attias, Rebecca Arnesty, Jose Millan, Arturo Cantu, Barbara Shingai, Lenore Kenny, Vera Pulido, Loreen Easterly

Staff:           Bronze Freeman

I.        Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 3:08pm. Rebecca thanked the Senate for their support in funding the faculty poster sessions; the evaluations had been excellent from those that had attended. The agenda for today’s meeting will be rearranged.

 

II.       Minutes
Steve provided his own nameplate, as per a request from the last Senate meeting. Page 3, C, fourth paragraph, second sentence, change “Kim” to “Helene”. Steve moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Jay seconded the motion. The motion to approve was passed unanimously.

III.      Reports
     A.  SEIU-Helene Jara
Helene distributed copies of an article written by Stephanie Stainback for publication in the CCFT Newsletter. The article outlines the current SEIU concerns, including food services. Please be sensitive to the Division Assistants and the Department Assistants as they are currently under stress due to the reorganization.

Nancy mentioned the $700,000.00 indebtedness to the general fund due to food services. This issue will be placed on the agenda. The students have complained of the food and the hours. The Cafeteria is an ancillary fund. There is also the issue of living wages.

Claire remarked on the good job done by the Union in working with the Classified Staff. The existing positions will remain at the same pay rate, or higher. Classified Staff’s salary will be protected. The Division Coordinator positions will be hired first, to allow those who did not obtain the position to apply for other positions within the Division.

B. Division Representatives- Claudia Close
Claire has asked the new Divisions to meet and nominate a curriculum sub-committee representative to attend the Curriculum Institute in June for training. A representative is recommended from Occupational Education and Transfer. Dale and Claudia will put together the in-house training, hopefully for Flex Week, to be ready for the following semester.  Claudia will obtain more information from Claire regarding the Curriculum Institute and the due date for submittal of representative names, and will report back at the next Senate meeting.


  VI.      New Business
      A. Senate Division Representation and Composition
Robin McFarland had wanted a discussion of this issue. As Robin was absent, Lisa clarified that Robin had concerns regarding the logistics of the terms when the Divisions merge. David noted that when the Divisions meet, a curriculum representative would be chosen and suggested asking Claire to have the Divisions also decide upon 2 Faculty Senate representatives.

Nancy will research Senators terms, as well as which Divisions the Senators will end up in the reorganization. This will be brought back to the next meeting.

 

B. Student Drops and Record Keeping- Gloria Garing
Gloria will present this issue at another meeting. Marcy provided an update, as Gloria was unable to attend. Datatel needs to be updated from R16 to R17, as the college may not fund this update, please contact the English Division Assistant at this point for a report. In response to David Balogh’s suggestion that the computer in the mailroom be available for faculty use, Nancy replied that there are no more site licenses for Datatel at this time. Gloria will be attending Datatel training session in Washington, DC.

      C. Curriculum Committee- Claudia Close
Copies of the December 12, 2001 Curriculum Committee minutes and the revisions/inactivations/deletions and new courses were distributed.

Claudia noted that Claire had wanted the three Curriculum Committee meetings split up so as to prevent a large amount of work having to go to the Board at the same time. The February 20 and 27 curriculum minutes and information will be presented at the next Senate meeting. The April 24 minutes will be sent forward to the Senate as soon as the minutes become available. Marcy moved to approve the work of the Curriculum Committee. Lisa seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously.

IV.      Action
     A.  BP and AR 3120- Nancy A. Brown
Nancy distributed copies of the revised AR/BP 3120 and pointed out the changes. The adoption date can be changed if the AR/BP is not approved today.

Nancy noted that Rose & Tuck had contacted her to provide advice on how to “streamline curriculum”. Nancy has not yet looked at the 3 files sent by Rose & Tuck. Claire voiced her concerns regarding review by the Curriculum Committee of curriculum that had not undergone a vote by the department of the author. Claudia remarked that faculty could present their views at the Curriculum Committee and the committee could then vote. Claire remarked that department disputes would slow down the curriculum process. Nancy noted that changes could be made later to the process if needed.

There were no Senate objections to Nancy’s inclusion of the language, “accuracy in completing forms”. Claudia noted that the language “Instruction Office” should be more clearly defined as “by the Office of Instruction”. Claudia withdrew her suggestion when Claire pointed out that any changes at this point would delay the AR/BP in being sent to the next Board meeting. All references to Division Chairs have been changed to Deans. On Page 3, David Balogh suggested that the language, “There may be subsequent Curriculum Committee meetings as needed” be changed to “The Curriculum Committee may delay action until the next regular meeting”; this suggested change could be made at a later date. The date of adoption on the AR/BP will be the date of adoption by the Board. Letitia moved to accept the revised AR/BP.  Lisa seconded the motion to accept. The motion was accepted unanimously.

B. Curriculum Process and Duties of Division Subcommittees
Nancy A. Brown distributed copies of the proposal worked on by herself, David Balogh, Mary Ellen Sullivan and Claudia Close.

Claudia noted the format of the form should be separated out as opposed to the list of duties. Each Division would turn in a list of courses with comments, or codes representing comments. This is a list for reference and not the final version of the form. Nancy K. Brown commented that she would like to see the form as a graphic. Claudia noted that could be done in the training manual and pointed out that fiscal impact had been intentionally left off of the form.

Nancy A. Brown felt that “turf wars” were inter-divisional more so than inter- discipline. Claudia noted that turf wars “should not be part of dialog”. Steve Hodges suggested a check box on the form, “have you had the appropriate turf war”. Claudia noted that if the criteria were fulfilled, fiscal would not be appropriate. Claire questioned why two faculty should do the work when out of 2 courses, only 1 course could be offered.

Nancy suggested looking at the duties on the form, and look at the rest of the form at a later date. Claudia thought the list was too detailed. In response to Eric’s question, Nancy clarified that there would be a standard form; the proposal would be used to generate the form. Rory felt the list of duties was appropriate. Nancy A. noted that a piece of paper for comments that would be attached to the form needed to be discussed. Dale noted that another layer was not needed; the cover sheet would address any comments. David suggested alpha designations for comments. Claire responded that it would be too difficult for those on the Curriculum Committee to memorize the designations and noted that if it went through Curriculum Committee and was accepted it could be left as is. If it were denied by the committee an explanation sheet could be attached; “just cite the problems”.

Nancy would like the Senate to “think about duties and forget about the form”. Two problems were not included on the sheet, fiscal impact and similar content taught under two disciplines. Marcy moved to accept the proposal. Mary Ellen seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Dale, Claudia and Mary Ellen will continue to work on the form.

V.       Old Business
           As Jose Millan had not arrived yet, item B was discussed first.
      B. Accreditation and Learner Outcomes Assessment- Marcy Alancraig
The first meeting was held last week, which coincided with the release of the new Accreditation Standards. A few changes had been made; overall the language did not change, especially regarding evaluations and program, degree and certificate level. The committee will meet again in a few weeks.

The committee will attend a HELP meeting on March 1, 2002 at Monterey Peninsula College. The committee divided their research into 4 topics: 1) What if Cabrillo says no, 2) models that could be used, 3) what CSU and other universities need to do around this and Marcy could not remember the title of the 4th. Nancy noted that Rory would create a link, including Topsy’s link. Rory will forward this information to Nancy to send out to the Senate. Rory would like the Senators to encourage their constituencies to “discuss Learner Outcomes”. Rory noted that Marcy was an “incredible resource” and encouraged all to attend the committee meetings. The next meeting will be March 13, from 3pm to 5pm. The room is pending, possibly Room 405. The meeting will teach the different models that Cabrillo College had looked at. Marcy state that, “Cabrillo College will be impacted, please attend”. Rory will confirm the meeting information and send it to Claire to be included in an Instruction Note. Claire remarked that she had sent out Draft B via an Instruction Note.

A. Staffing Process- Refer to BP/AR 5105- Jose Millan
Jose, along with others, had met with Ralph Black in September. They were urged to revisit the regulations and delete any references to ethnicity. Jose has been working with the Classified Labor management to revisit the regulations. Jose distributed copies of the proposed new language in AR 5500 that had resulted from the meeting.

Regarding Draft B, the Diversity Task Force (Lenore Kenny, Arturo Cantu, Loreen Easterly, Barbara Shingai, Vera Pulido and Kim Belliveau) will look at training modules to train all faculty and staff on diversity so that all the campus would be included. Jose noted that this would take a lot of time and effort, but this goal could be met this year. Jose noted that this “will retain the spirit of inclusion. We want the best to teach here”.

Jose also introduced the topic of an Open House. Human Resources and the Diversity Task Force looked at ways to make Cabrillo College attractive to graduate and finishing graduate students. There will be an Open House and graduates from CSU and UC (departments will be specified) to attend. The graduates will be able to meet with faculty, visit classrooms and see the Cabrillo College community. Claire and Human Resources are in support of the Open House Graduate Day. Faculty Senators are invited; please provide any suggestions to Jose. There will be a welcoming lunch and dinner served. Regarding the cost of housing, Jose noted that it would be easier for Graduate students to afford to live in studios.

Wanda noted the difficulties of recruiting for the Math Department. Jose remarked that hits were received on the college website when a position for a graduate Math intern position was listed. Jose noted that the website had also had hits from Italy for a similar intern position. Letitia commented that she was grateful for the work being done to retain the “spirit” and was in favor of the internships. Letitia noted that she was excited at the possibility of expanding diversity of recruitment, and expressed her thanks to the Task Force. In response to David’s question as to whether or not the Adjunct positions would remain open, Jose replied that the topic was under discussion. There are two options, 1) do not close the hiring pool or 2) an automatic renewal date. Jose noted that Foothill College uses continual recruitment.

In response to Nancy’s questions regarding whether it was legal to recruit through the internship, Jose responded in the negative. David mentioned that it would be appropriate for the Senate to vote on the proposed Draft. Nancy noted that this would be an agenda item; AR 5105 will be revised and could be used to change locutions.

Letitia clarified that those in the mentor program would only be teaching one class, it would leave the graduates time to work on their thesis. Regarding 4.C.4 of the draft, the language “committed to” Helene suggested asking for volunteers first and include the Classifieds. Jose clarified that the process began with the Search and Selection Committee Chairs, and then the members of the Search and Selection Committee and then the training would be opened to the college so individuals could decide to serve on this basis. Records will be kept of names of those people that have completed the training and the Diversity Task Force will decide on the models. Ultimately the training model would be sent to the Governing Board.

In response to Rory’s question as to who would decide who was committed or not, Letitia replied that it is an assumption that when people are hired, they are committed to the college. Rory felt the draft was ill defined, it was a good idea, but not enough information to vote upon. Letitia responded that it was “only new language”. Nancy noted that a lot of Board Policies were ambiguous. Lenore commented, “people have beliefs no matter the training”. The Task Force is trying to give people opportunities to look at ways of helping Cabrillo College diversify and are “just putting that value out to the college”. Helene expressed her hope that department statistics would be looked at.

Arturo commented that from an affirmative action point of view, this is a failure; the suggestions are an attempt to look at something else. Vera noted that the Task Force is a resource. Nancy noted that Ralph Black had used “non-discrimination” in Proposition 229 and remarked that Cabrillo College could use that language.

Jose remarked that there is still a remaining threat of “adverse impacts” lawsuits from groups. Jose cautioned that there are consequences to decisions “made and paid” on “adverse impact”; the threshold is 80%. 80% Jose commented that despite the Connerly Decision, he is still mandated to collect the numbers that are reported to the Chancellor’s Office each year. The mandate is broad based. Lenore commented that applicants could choose to not “self-disclose”. Jose concurred that there is a stigma attached to disabilities.

Jose stressed that Cabrillo College could not recruit to particular ethnic organizations; media would have to be inclusive of all ethnic groups. Any form of recruitment, including media and magazines would have to be sent to all organizations. Letitia noted that the advertisement would “filter down” amongst organizations. Belita questioned how diversity would be assured amongst candidates and asked how the college would address this. Jose replied that it was not easily answered. Cabrillo College does not have the resources to advertise on this large a scale. Jose noted that $43, 000.00 had been spent for classified and faculty recruitment in the San Jose Mercury since July.

David remarked that the State Academic Senate had stipulated that hiring committees could be stopped if the pool was not representative. In response to David’s question as to whether “headhunters” could be used, Jose replied in the affirmative as long as “the rules are followed”. In response to Letitia’s question as to who decides to stop a hiring committee, Nancy responded that the law says that criteria regarding ethnicity could not be used.

Vera noted that the faculty should forward names of associations so a database could be created. Vera would like to get Cabrillo College’s name out in communities without spending a lot of money. “All community colleges will have to be active to create the database”. Lenore pointed out that hiring committees would not know ethnicities unless the applicant chose to disclose. Claire noted that Ralph Black has stated in his memo that a hiring pool could be closed if the pool were not broad enough; the Vice President, Instruction or the Director of Human Resources could close the pool. Nancy thanked Jose for attending.

VII.    Reports Continued
There were no further reports.

VIII.   Agenda Building
           There were no further agenda items.

IX.      Items From the Floor
There were no items from the floor

X.       Adjournment
Mary Ellen moved to adjourn at 5:04pm. Rory seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned.

FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES: March 12, 2002
3:00pm To 5:00pm, Room 1804

Present:     David Balogh, Nancy A. Brown, Steve Hodges, Lisa Feintech, Robin McFarland, Jay Jackson, Belita Magee, Helene Jara, Laura Thompson-Dickie, Sylvia Winder, Marcy Alancraig, Jake Siskin, Nancy K. Brown, Rory O’Brien, Mary Ellen Sullivan, Kim Belliveau, Eric Carter, Letitia Scott-Curtis, Claudia Close

Guests:     Claire Biancalana, Liz Curtis, Goran Klepic, Courtney Rider, Jeff Ackey

Staff:        Bronze Freeman

I.      Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 3:10pm. Marcy praised the quality of the food provided for Senate meetings by the Culinary Arts Department.

II.      Minutes
Nancy K. approved the minutes as read. Laura seconded the motion. The motion to approve the minutes as read was passed unanimously.

III.     Reports
Per Nancy, the President’s report will be discussed in conjunction with agenda item, New Business, Budget.

     A. SEIU- Helene Jara
No report at this time

     B. Presidents Report/New Business-Budget: Nancy A. Brown
Nancy distributed copies of CPC’s 02-03 Draft Preliminary Budget; only the first 3 pages of the report are provided.

This report attempts to indicate the scope of the problem; the last page is the summary. Nancy read through the bulleted items on the first page. The reduction of Matriculation will be by almost $200,000.00 per Claire. The reductions in TTIP also affects technology, the TLC, the Library, etc. Instruction will not be affected by the reductions in the Economic Development Program. Page 2 of the report estimates the worst/best case scenario; listing Pegi Ard’s planning assumptions as well as how Cabrillo College will be affected.

Page 3 of the report is the budget balance. 1.5 million dollars will be taken out of the budget over the next 3 years. The first year 1/3 of the 1.5 million dollars will be removed; the rest will be spread over the next 2 subsequent years. Per Nancy A., CPC “broke the hit into functions, as to what each component would get”. Instruction will have to provide 71% of the cuts, Business Services 17%, the President’s Office 2.2% (approximately) and Student Services 9%.

David Balogh asked if it were fair to take funding from Instruction when the Governor’s cuts were outside of Instruction. Claire clarified the “backing out” category, which is 22% of the budget; this percentage is not included in the funds that will be cut. The category includes money from the Chancellor’s Office for Adjunct Instructors, the utility bill, etc; these are funds that cannot be cut. Claire noted the money that could be saved if printing costs were cut as well as the conversion and classified money that could be used from Stephanie Stainback. Instruction would get 71% from each of these funds. David noted the $35, 000.00 credit card money. Jay clarified that it students charge to credit cards, Cabrillo College would pay a percentage. Nancy noted that these issues would be discussed at DCC.

Helene suggested charging students $2.00 for Catalogs. Claire noted that before Matriculation, students were charged $2.00 for Catalogs. Another option would be to do a 2 year Catalog to cut down on the printing costs, or do 2 schedules instead of 4. Options need to be explored; please submit to Claire by April 8, preferably earlier if possible. The college is looking at ways to cut $35, 000.00 this year. Claire spoke with Rock Pfotenhauer to obtain suggestions. They looked at removing low enrollment classes and use the supplies and equipment money, put it in savings, and use the teaching units in other highly enrolled classes. Rock had noted that this was a good opportunity to look at the process and look at what Cabrillo College can do for the community. David noted that if classes have higher enrollments, the extra supplies would be needed and the money could not be cut.

Claudia suggested exclusive credit card use; the company may waive the fee. Nancy noted that it was a good suggestion. Nancy A. clarified for Jay the reduction from CalWorks would be spent as the college saw fit, as per the Governor. Claire would like to cover the reductions. Nancy would like to roll this money into the General Fund for the future. Most members at CPC did not want to target the cuts by the Governor. On Page 2, Claire clarified the categorical places where the Governor would make cuts.

David remarked that he had made inquires at the Academic Senate as to what other community colleges were doing, either absorbing or making cuts. David noted that all the schools would have to coordinate to make a difference. “There is a need to preserve jobs”.

In response to Belita’s question regarding the hiring freeze, Claire replied that the hiring freeze is temporary. “We will continue the process, but will not offer the jobs”. David remarked that CPC had discussed hiring and does not want to discourage hiring in the reorganization. Claire stated that the reorganization is not the cause of the budget problems.

IV.    Action
    A. Curriculum Committee- Claudia Close
Claudia distributed copies of the approved spring 2002 curriculum, as well as copies of the Curriculum Committee February 20 and 27 minutes. The minutes of the 27th are uncorrected; Claire would like less curriculum sent to the Board at one time. The next meeting is scheduled for April 24, 2002.

In response to Laura’s question as to why the language lab corequisite’s had been removed, Claire replied that they would be attached to the course. Jay asked for the rationale behind changing BOST to CABT (Computer Applications and Business Technology). Claudia responded that it could now be moved closer to related courses in the Catalog. Claire noted the difficulty when programs change their name; it touches all parts of the college. Claire understands the reason for the change, but joked, “no further name changes”.

Nancy asked Claudia to forward the file electronically so she could distribute it to the Senate prior to the meetings. Claudia clarified the Senate would only be approving the process, not the content. A book of curriculum is also distributed to all the Divisions. David noted that the books would still be available in the Division Offices. Claudia remarked on the improved format of the handout made available by Dale Attias. Marcy moved to accept the work of the Curriculum Committee. Lisa seconded the motion. The motion to accept was passed unanimously.

     B. CCFT Party- Nancy A. Brown
Per Senate agreement, Nancy A. will accept the invitation for the Senate to attend a CCFT party. Debra has promised to not discuss Senate processes. The purpose is for the Senate to work more closely with CCFT, but not necessarily always back them if viewpoints differ. The job of the Faculty Senate is to assure the quality of Instruction and is responsible for listening to the students.

VI.    New Business
    A. Student Concerns regarding the Cafeteria
Representatives from the Student Senate were present to discuss their concerns regarding continued business with Sodexho.

Goran remarked that a survey had been taken over the last 4 semesters regarding the services of Sodexho. Many of the students surveyed had expressed concerns regarding the quality of the food and the moral issue of private prisons. Referring to the January 4, 2002 Board Book, Goran relayed figures regarding the debt incurred by Sodexho. Goran would like the $700,000.00 that it would take to “bail out” Sodexho to be used toward Instruction. Goran encouraged the Faculty Senate to see the student issues; there is no hot food served after 2:00pm. Food services had been provided in the afternoon as a result of discussion between the Student Senate and Doug Deaver. Goran noted that the biggest criticism is the loss of money together with the product, nutrition and presentation of the food. “We need to look at where we will lose money and should not subsidize companies that are losing money”. Goran was attempting to represent the “mean average” student; Goran had also presented this issue to the Board.

Jeff Ackey is the chair of the Cafeteria Committee. Jeff quoted Gary Reese of the Governing Board, “The students are getting bad food and have to pay for it”. Jeff reiterated and supported the comments made by Goran. The committee has met with Doug Deaver and has been working on alternatives. Of a poll sent out to community colleges, 36 colleges responded; 12 of those colleges contracted out their food services. If Cabrillo College changed to a fully contracted out food service provider, money would be brought into the college. There is the potential for both students and staff to eat on campus, and not have to leave the campus to obtain food. Jeff had met with Michael Clark who runs the American Café in the County Courthouse. Jeff had tried the food at the Café; it was good and reasonably priced. Michael would be willing to take over the food services for Cabrillo College. “The turnaround time is important”.

In response to Helene’s question regarding the job security of the 3 classified employees, Jeff had spoken with Michael regarding this. Michael would be will to hire them, as well as student employees. In response to Sylvia’s question as to the size of Michael’s current operation, Jeff replied that he provides services to all of the County building and the County building receives 7% of the profits. Courtney noted that of a poll taken last year, 73% had said the current food service was below average and only 3% had said the food was excellent. Courtney stated the Student Senate would like the support of the Faculty Senate in not renewing the contract with Sodexho. Liz commented that the bottom line is that every solution so far to fix the cafeteria has been at the expense of the students. Currently all the revenue from the vending machines on campus goes to the Student Senate. The profits from new machines on campus would go toward the cafeteria. Goran noted that the prison inmates prepare the food sent to the college. Sylvia remarked that Allan Lonnberg had addressed this issue at CCFT and has all the information on the conditions of the prisons.

In response to Laura’s question as to whether food services would have to go to the lowest bidder, Claire responded in the affirmative but clarified that the bids could be quantified before hand. Only two bids had come in previously; Sodexho had been one of them. Claire noted the difficulty of opening the problem up now; the bid packages need to be redone, but would not be completed in time for July 1st. Gary Reese had suggested changing the date. Pegi had remarked that there would be more options available. Claire hopes that “it plays out”.

Jeff commented that when the Student Senate had made the predetermination for contracting out, all the issues, both moral and Union, had been taken into consideration. “The job of the Student Senate is to take care of the students”. Nancy stated that most food service is exploited labor. It is not a clear issue and is hard to say where to draw the line. This problem would not be fixed by having a fixed living wage at Cabrillo College. Goran stated that the Student Senate was not opposed to protecting the positions of the SEIU employees in the cafeteria. The product must change; a lot of students are leaving campus to obtain food. Nancy remarked that she had been attending the Board meetings and the student presentations had been “impressive”.

Rory remarked that the Faculty Senate would need to take a stand and questioned what could be done about the SEIU employees. Nancy stated that the Union is opposed to outsourcing; the students are advocating outsourcing. CCFT stands with the Union. Nancy asked the Senators to consider the issues and she will take this to the Board. Nancy remarked that the cafeteria, which is an Ancillary Fund, has been drawing from the General Fund; this should not be happening. Helene clarified that there had been no SEIU report at this time, because SEIU was still unclear on the issue. Helene will report to SEIU that the Student Senate is in support of the 3 SEIU positions. There are two issues: living wage and the 3 positions. Goran noted that if food services were outsourced, jobs could be found elsewhere on campus for those SEIU employees. Helene noted the 3 positions are currently paid more than the living wage, including benefits.

Nancy K. thought it better to subsidize the 3 positions than to take the loss and thought that the issue of outsourcing could be worked out. Jeff remarked that Josh Pastor, another Student Senator, had stated that, “ the needs of the people outweigh the needs of the few”. The cost of $32,000.00 in employee wages would be less than what is being currently lost.
Goran stated that it is not a SEIU against Student Senate issue. He has spoken with Stephanie of SEIU and it would require $80,000.00 with benefits to support the 3 positions. “It is clearly a product issue”. Nancy A. thanked the Student Senators for their presentations.

V.     Old Business
    A. AR5105- Nancy A. Brown
Nancy distributed copies of the revised version of AR5105. “Chair” was struck and replaced with “Dean”.  “Director of Equity and Diversity” was struck and replaced with “Assistant Director of Human Resources”. The changes to 3.C are due to the discussion with Jose Millan. Nancy read through the rest of the changes.

In response to Nancy’s suggestion of only one trained person on the hiring committee, Marcy responded that it should not be the responsibility of one person to carry the burden of diversity. Claire suggested having the hiring committee trained together. David expressed his concern with repetitive training. Marcy said that would be predicated upon the training, it would serve as a refresher. Helene noted that she hoped that statistics would be mentioned. Nancy will send the AR to Jose Millan after Senate input. Claire suggested a blend; Jose would do all the training for the first two years. Marcy noted that Jose had been specific about training the Search and Selection Chairs first, then the committees and then everyone else. On Page 2, #1 will be struck and #5 will be rewritten. Nancy will renumber accordingly. “Nondiscrimination” will be replaced with “college diversity values”. Marcy remarked that she hoped that the needs would change, as more diverse faculty were received at Cabrillo College.

Under 8.d, the Senate agreed to the language “process”. Referring to 6, Claire stated that by this point in the process, those that do the review would have seen the chart of ethnicity, if disclosed, to make a decision. Claire clarified the process; per the law, ethnicity cannot be a basis for hiring. Only the sufficiency of the pool would be looked at. Nancy A. noted that it was still a part of the process. Sylvia remarked that it was a “peculiar” discussion to be having under the Connerly Decision. #11 of the AR is intentionally left ambiguous.

AR5105C
Nancy distributed copies of the revised AR5105C. References to the “Personnel Office” will be changed to “Human Resources”.  4.c, in parenthesis “training for student members optional” will be added to the bold. #3, add, “shall” to read, “The announcement shall contain information….”. Nancy will fix the grammar of the AR.

Lisa remarked that it would be prohibitive if each new committee had to undergo the training. Lisa clarified that she was not opposed to everyone receiving training, only to the repetitiveness. Rory suggested incorporating the training into All College Day. Claire suggested that Jose Millan present to the Student Senate. Liz Curtis will contact Jose.

Nancy changed the reference to the “AB1725 Task Force” to “Ad Hoc Committee”. Claire reminded Nancy that there were 2 administrators, 2 CCFT representatives and 2 Faculty Senators on the Task Force. Nancy noted that equivalency is the purview of the Faculty Senate, so CCFT was written out. Nancy asked the Senate to think about the AR. Nancy will make the changes and bring this back; the corrections will be sent out via e-mail. Nancy will present this to DCC tomorrow.

BP/AR 3100
Nancy distributed copies of the BP/AR. Bette Hirsch had requested that the Senate look at the proposed changes to the BP/AR.  This is for information only. Please look at it; it will be discussed at the next Senate meeting. Jake, who serves on the committee, clarified that there are revisions to reflect the updates in the programs being offered and would like to offer.

     B. HELP- Nancy A. Brown
Nancy commended Marcy for her work at the HELP (Higher Education Learning Partners) conference.  The purpose of the conference had been to discuss Learner Outcome models. Marcy noted that of the 5 colleges (Hartnell, MPC, CSUMB, Cabrillo College and Evergreen), Cabrillo College is ahead in the process. Claire noted that it was because other schools had not turned this over to their faculty.
The Ad Hoc committee will meet tomorrow in Room 405, from 3pm to 5pm. Three models of Learner Outcomes will be taught by Marcy, as well as why the Learner Outcomes model presented at the HELP conference would not work for Cabrillo College.

Claire will send out information regarding the meeting tomorrow via an Instruction Note. Rory noted that he had been inspired, “it was a product of what the faculty had wanted”. Nancy remarked that the State Academic Senate was asking for evaluation to be dropped and a delay in the process. Nancy suggested hosting an event similar to the HELP conference, and have Marcy present to the faculty. Marcy would like another meeting of those that had attended the HELP conference for input as to what they will do.

Claire asked Marcy if she would be interested in ongoing meetings to discuss Learner Outcomes and Accreditation. MPC will be one of the first colleges to go through the new Accreditation standards. Claire noted that the State Academic Senate would meet on April 4, 2002. A CIO panel will meet at the same time; Ron Baker with the Accreditation in Washington from Evergreen College will present. Claire suggested that Senators take an hour and attend CIO. This will be placed on the agenda for next time.

VII.   Reports Continued
There were no further reports.

VIII.  Agenda Building
There were no more agenda items.

IX.    Items From the Floor
Nancy K. expressed her students concerns that online registration is available before the hardcopy of the schedule is distributed; those students without access to computers are at a disadvantage. Jay clarified that the schedule of classes is available early online, but the registration process does not open until the hardcopy has been distributed. Nancy K. will obtain more information from her students regarding this.

X.      Adjournment
Jay moved to adjourn at 5:00pm. The meeting was adjourned.
 
 

FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES: March 26, 2002
3:00pm To 5:00pm, Room 1804

Present:     Nancy A. Brown, David Balogh, Jake Siskin, Jay Jackson, Topsy Smalley, Nancy K. Brown, Robin McFarland, Kim Belliveau, Belita Magee, Mary Ellen Sullivan, Lisa Feintech, Helene Jara, David Sullivan, Rory O’Brien, Steve Hodges, Marcy Alancraig, Letitia Scott-Curtis

Guest:        Claire Biancalana

Staff:          Bronze Freeman

I.       Call to Order
The meeting was convened at 3:05pm.

II.      Minutes
The date of the minutes was corrected. Steve moved to accept the minutes. Mary Ellen seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.

III.     Reports
    A. Area B Meeting- Nancy A. Brown
The state of California is divided into four areas. Cabrillo belongs to Area B (Napa through Hartnell/Gavilon). Nancy distributed a handout; the first page is an excerpt from “Taking a Look at Ourselves, Accreditation” written by Judith Eaton. The paper explains why the movement toward the new standards is taking place; the paper discusses 6 ways to accomplish the shift. Page 2 of the handout outlines salient changes to the proposed changes in ACCJC Accreditation Standards. These two items are for information purposes.

David Balogh suggested that Cabrillo College host the next Area B meeting on October 18, 2002 in the Sesnon House, catered by Culinary Arts. The focus would be on the new Accreditation standards. Marcy noted that the new Draft C would be out in May. The June meeting will be open for public comment; the new standards would be adopted that same week.

In response to Claire’s question regarding what would be the one thing, if possible, that people would like changed, Marcy replied “faculty evaluations”. The Senate concurred. David would like Cabrillo to host the meeting to encourage all Faculty Senators to attend and “see how the State Senate does business”.

     B. Evaluation Committees- Nancy A. Brown
One duty of the Senate is to find faculty volunteers to serve on the comprehensive evaluation teams. Four representatives are still needed to serve on four teams. There will be two meetings, the first to look at all the material, the second for the evaluation. The four  remaining faculty undergoing evaluation are Sue Tappero, Kay Cardwell, Shelley West and Ann Stanley. Lisa will resend an email to the MSE Division asking for volunteers. If there are no volunteers, David Balogh and Nancy A. will serve as the representatives, two committees each.
 
 

     C. Retirement Party- David Balogh
May 17 at 7:00pm is the retirement party; please attend to “say goodbye”. May 31 at 5:00pm is graduation. There is one week left to obtain your caps and gowns. David was pleased with the faculty turnout at graduation last year; please attend again this year.

    D. All College Day Speakers- David Balogh
David spoke with Francine; there is no money to hire speakers for this year’s All College Day. David would like the theme to be one of betterment for faculty. David proposed two suggestions, 1) discuss the reorganization (perspective of the Dean, faculty, classified and the Pilot program) and/or 2) Learner Outcomes. There would be one hour for this discussion. David is open to suggestions; please have the topic be germane to all people.

     E. Treasurer Report- Steve Hodges
There was no report.

     F. SEIU- Helene Jara
SEIU has signed off on outsourcing food services for the college.

VI.    New Business
    D. Retirement Party and Faculty Reception- Nancy A. Brown
This topic was partly covered earlier.  There will be a faculty reception at graduation. Past practice is for the Senate to donate $600.00 for the food and the tent. Marcy moved to donate $600.00. Lisa seconded the motion. The Senate unanimously agreed to sponsor for $600.00.

Carolyn Bliss-Isberg, Jan Furman, Jane Gregorius, Cathy Summa and Pat Combs and Nancy A. Brown comprise the Retirement Committee. They will be sending out invitations. Helene volunteered to help on the committee.

     B. Transition Teams, (CCFT/Senate Party)- Nancy A. Brown
The item of business at the party will be a discussion of the reorganization. CCFT will meet for the first two hours, then the Senate will attend for the next two hours; all attendees should bring food and/or beverages since the party is a pot luck. Nancy thought that office locations as well as the work done by the transition teams should be included in the discussion. Claire had asked the Division Deans on Monday that the transition teams be put together, and to include classified representation. Nancy asked that the Senators speak with their faculty and determine if the teams have been formed and that they have adequate representation of faculty and classified. The classified staff is important for input regarding the office space. Claire noted that there would be an office for the Dean, the Division Coordinator, the Account Specialist and faculty workspace as well as room for reception and room for desk space.

    A. Academic Search and Selection BP 5105- Nancy A. Brown
Referring to BP 5105, the footnote, Nancy noted that Jose had provided it. Please read this. Nancy noted that it was unwise to say “affirmative action” as per Ralph Black; look at the changes made to the BP.

“District policy” will be changed to “District policies” and “diversity principles” will be changed to “diversity values”. The last sentence, strike “diversity guidelines” and replace with “the college diversity values”.
 

IV.     Action
     A. Staffing Process AR5105- Nancy A. Brown
Nancy distributed the revised versions of AR/BP 5105. AR5105 is conceptually the same. The major changes are on Page 4, “Division Chair” was replaced with “Division Dean” and the title of Human Resources is now a “department”. There were also minor grammatical corrections made.

Nancy spoke with DCC regarding training for one or all on the hiring committees. Marcy had objected to only one person being trained. Jose’s plan is to create a “training tree”, the trainers would train the trainees, and the knowledge would “filter down”. Jose had also wanted the language “or designee” included when the AR obligated him to attend some function. Nancy read through the changes.

David Balogh respectfully disagreed with the “training tree” concept; the “story” would change as it were passed down. David suggested a training video that would be available for checkout; the checkout sheet would serve as proof of those that had received the training. Helene had suggested having the training incorporated into All College Day; Jose was in favor of the suggestion. Jake noted that the video would be only one-sided and would not be a directive.

Kim remarked that the “training tree” was based upon a limited training budget; the committee had discussed all the options. Claire questioned the cost when Jose is on salary and training is part of his duties. David remarked that as there would be no money next year, a video should be made this year. It is possible to purchase an existing video; David would prefer an original video for Cabrillo College. Rory remarked that it made sense.

Regarding the language that retirees could not serve on the Search and Selection Committees, Claire stated that the language should remain. There remains the issue of one- person departments and what would happen when that contract faculty retired. Nancy relayed a personal experience directly related to the language; Nancy had an altercation with a contract faculty member that served on her hiring committee; raising the issue of bias on hiring committees.  Claire remarked that it is a difficult issue regarding having retirees serving on committees, there is bias. Lisa noted that whether or not a faculty member was retiring, they could still serve on the committee; the bias would still exist. Nancy concurred. Letitia remarked on the “appearance of bias”. Claire commented that people would look to the retirees for their opinion because of their experience. Claire suggested using faculty not in the discipline to serve as the subject matter specialist, instead of hiring from another college.

Marcy noted that she had witnessed bias of many occasions on hiring committees from contract faculty toward adjunct faculty. Claire stated that the Vice President of Instruction or Human Resources should be contacted. David saw no purpose to keeping retirees off the hiring committees. Rory suggested a waiver for circumstances where there is a one-person department. Claire agreed to a discussion of a waiver. Nancy will place this on the next agenda.

4.3, the language was added, “…except in the case of a one contract faculty department and with mutual agreement between the department and the appropriate Vice President”. Nancy K. noted that the language “unbiased participation” was already included in #5. This will not be an action item today. Jose has seen the changes and Nancy A., Claire and Jose will meet on Thursday to discuss this. Marcy moved to table this item for the next meeting. Lisa seconded the motion. All were in favor.

V.     Old Business
    A. Accreditation and Learner Outcomes Assessment- Marcy Alancraig
Marcy taught 3 models for Learner Outcomes. The model from Howard College was rejected due to cost; the CSUMB model was also rejected. Marcy’s favorite is the Raymond Walters model. Marcy will discuss the report written by Diane Putnam based on 5 colleges. The committee discussed next semester having volunteers pilot the models. Marcy will attend 3 conferences this month to look at more models. Please take a look at Topsy’s website, Topsy.com.

Nancy remarked that there is still time, but it is good for the college to obtain focus early. Claire noted that Vicky Morrow from the Chancellor’s Office has been appointed to the Accrediting Commission; this is very good for Cabrillo College. Vicky had mentioned what would be looked at by the commission (course objective outlines as learner outcomes, looking at the classrooms, program objectives).

Rory invited everyone to attend the next meeting tomorrow from 3:00pm to 4:30pm. There is a need for “critical mass”. Please think about and talk about learner outcomes, “if have regular conversation, it will be good for processing”. Nancy A. noted that the process is “incredibly mutable” and it is good for the Faculty Senate to keep the faculty informed. In response to David’s question as to whether 4-year institutions were looking at accrediting, Mary Ellen replied that on the WASC Website there is both 4 and 2-year accrediting. Mary Ellen would like a research project done on this; the information is out there, she needs to look at it. David remarked on the need to watch out for articulation agreements.

Marcy noted that the next Learner Outcomes Institute would be June 10 to the following Tuesday (tentative). Marcy would like to open up slots at the institute for other colleges and charge them to participate. Rory, having attended a professional conference where a lot of schools are still in the dark regarding this issue, commented that Cabrillo College is ahead of the game.

     B. 2002-2003 CPC Report- Nancy A. Brown
Nancy reminded the Senate that 1.5 million needs to come out of the budget; $500,000.00 this year. $355,000.00 will be from Instruction. The Governor has targeted certain categorical funds. Pallomar College let go 4 Counselors and their Director of Matriculation and Guidance to cut costs.

Please think about this issue. Claire would like to protect the existing structure; Nancy is afraid of losing out on teaching units and Contract Faculty replacements. The quality of instruction would be lost, or resources would be shifted. Marcy noted that her department is discussing option for cuts from places other than Instruction. Nancy remarked that Alex Taurke had suggestion using conference money, but Nancy noted that money is contractual. Claire remarked that money would only be $30,000.00 to $40,000.00 and one-time money is only “one-time”; the baseline needs to be given up.

David remarked that the move by Pallomar would serve to make people aware of what the situation is. The community colleges need to stick together. Claire remarked that all is being done to nurture the college and the community. Claire agreed with Nancy regarding protection of the instructors, but noted that support is also needed to “get the students into the classroom” and retain them; Counselors, tutors and facilities are needed. 71% will be cut because Instruction is a big part of the college. The County is helping Fast Track with $100,000.00; this is more than Fast Track has received in the past. There will be no staff development funds for next year. Claire remarked that Cabrillo College serves as a national model right now for Fast Track to Work.

In response to Robin’s question regarding the timeline for making the cuts, Claire responded April 8, 2002. Claire remarked that if Adjunct Faculty could replace some Contract Faculty for a 3-year period, the college would still be able to serve the students. It would be more difficult to freeze classified positions; the contract states that classified staff cannot be replaced with temporary hourly. LIA positions could be replaced with student tutors, but it would not be feasible. Claire remarked that the retiree positions may not be able to be filled for a 3-year period, but reminded the Senate of how many faculty had been hired over the last decade. The Faculty Senate is pushing for Contract Faculty.

    C. Student Senate Presentation Regarding Cafeteria- Nancy A. Brown
In light of SEIU’s support of the student position, Nancy will report to the Board that the Faculty Senate is also in agreement. Claire suggested that Nancy thank the Board if they decide to take action. Lisa clarified that the Senate is in agreement on both the timing and the objective; the students would like the contract to not be renewed. Steve concurred with no contract renewal, “it may cause a lapse in service, but the Senate is in support”.

Nancy K. jokingly suggested that Instruction have a bake sale to supplement the budget cuts. Claire could donate a dinner.

VII.   Reports Continued
         There were none. Steve jokingly inquired if the agenda could be placed in chronological
order. David responded that Roberts Rule’s state that agenda items may be moved.

VIII.  Agenda Building
There were no further agenda items.

IX.    Items From the Floor
A. Nancy K. had spoken with Debra in A&R. Debra confirmed that registration had been open online prior to distribution of the hardcopies of the schedule. This had occurred during both Fall and Spring semester. This situation has been remedied.

B. Topsy requested a facilities update. This will be placed on the agenda toward the end of April. Nancy noted that the state bond issue is on line. Claire remarked on the bond for 20 million dollars submitted to the Chancellor’s Office for Student Services and the new VAPA complex.

X.     Adjournment
Steve moved to adjourn at 4:50pm. Helene seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned.

FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES: April 16, 2002
3:00pm To 5:00pm, Room 1804

Present:  David Balogh, Nancy A. Brown, Helene Jara, Rory O’Brien, Letitia Scott-Curtis, Kim Belliveau, Nancy K. Brown, Jamie Abbott, Steve Hodges, Jay Jackson, Jake Siskin, Robin McFarland, Lisa Feintech, Laura Thompson-Dickie, Eric Carter, Sylvia Winder, Claudia Close, Marcy Alancraig, David Sullivan, Liz Curtis-Student Senate
 

Guests:   Johanna Bowen, Arturo Cantu, Loreen Easterly, Vera Pulido, Jose Millan, Barbara Shingai, Cassandra Paden, Bette Hirsch, , Goran Klepic-Student Senate, Jeff Hickey-Student Senate, Marcio Estrada-Student Senate, Courtney Rider-Student Senate,
 

Staff:       Bronze Freeman

I.      Call to Order
The meeting was convened at 3:09pm.

II.      Minutes
Page 4, third paragraph, change “Mary Ellen Sullivan” to “Marcy Alancraig” regarding learner outcomes. Jay moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Nancy K. seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously.

III.    Reports
     A. Billie Paul Award- Claudia Close
Claudia would like the support of the Senate in nominating Dale Attias and John Mauceri for the Billie Paul Meritorious Award. Claudia distributed the appropriate forms and copies of the nominations that Claudia had submitted last year. “Dale and John have made a fundamental impact on the business of instruction from the students to the Vice President”. In response to David B. question as to whether one form with all signatures should be submitted, Claudia replied in the negative, the Senate should “snow with volume”.

     B. Student Senate Appeal- Goran Klepic
Goran thanked the Senate for being invited. Goran referred to the letter of April 8, 2002 that he had received from Student Affairs informing him that he was ineligible to continue serving as Student Trustee as he did not have enough units. The position requires 6 units; Board Policy 1060 stipulates 6 units, but the Education Code, Section 8 requires a student to be enrolled with a minimum 5 semester units or equivalent. Goran would like full reinstatement; he was removed without having a Senate hearing and would like a report from the Vice President of Student Services.

Goran explained his situation to the Senate; he had 4 units, admitted to being behind in his course work but referred to an agreement between himself and his instructor. His instructor would allow him to turn in partial work for 1 unit. For this credit, his instructor needed a signature from his Division Chair, a process that has apparently taken 4 months. Goran questioned why this had happened a couple of months before the end of his term; he believes he did a good job and should not be hindered by a “technicality”.

Goran expressed regret that the Vice President of Instruction was not present at the meeting to explain why this was happening to him and on the lack of “shared governance”. Goran “will fight this” and has not talked to The Voice, because “he is a man of honor”. Goran thanked the Senate for their time and noted that he did not expect an appeal. Goran threatened to turn in the certificates he had received from Cabrillo College if he is not at the table at the next Governing Board meeting.

Goran clarified that he had been a day late in submitting his add slip for the 1 unit and the Assistant Director of A&R had denied the add slip, stating that if an exception was made for the Student Trustee, then an exception would have to be made for all students. Goran stated that Arturo had stated,” don’t worry about it” concerning the missed deadline. Goran stated that this action to remove him from his position is to “silence him”. Liz noted the two issues, the first is that the BP says 6 units, the Education Code says 5 units. Goran had five units, including the lab, but according to Liz, the Vice President would not approve the 1 unit for the lab. Arturo clarified what had transpired between himself and Goran, he had not said “don’t worry about it”; the add slip was denied due to being submitted late, to obtain the credit Goran would have to enroll in the fall. The late add petition was denied.

Jeff Hickey remarked on the large amount of work done by Goran and expressed his displeasure that Goran had not been involved in a shared governance process. Jeff remarked that it was “obvious to all students that Goran was picked on”. Jeff would like to know why Goran was singled out, when he had not been the only student to not complete units. Liz remarked that with the loss of Goran, there are now only 5 students on the Student Senate. David B. remarked that this singular use of the minimum unit rule in Goran’s case apparently is a departure from past practice, and may be construed by some to be vindictive. The Senate should urge the administration that if it wishes to enforce the rules regarding minimum unit issues, they should be enforced near the beginning of a given semester and applied to all students who are involved in student government. David remarked that he felt terrible that this had happened, and noted that today was the first time that he had heard of this issue.

Jay J. remarked on the need for action to initiate a better process to clarify add dates and dates for late staring classes; “the language is nebulous”. Jay noted that late add petitions used to be decided by a committee, they are now decided by the Assistant Director of Admissions. Marcy noted her concern with the involved faculty member being invited to speak with the Vice President and his Division Chair regarding this issue. Nancy suggested the creation of a task force to look at the process for evaluating student eligibility utilized by Student Services. Liz commented that “they are trying to cover their tracks” but she knows the “truth”, has proof and if you have any questions you should speak with her. The Task Force membership will be Nancy A., Liz, Nancy K. and Jay J. The task force will look at the late add deadlines. Goran remarked that he would have done the work to obtain the credit, but his instructor had said not to; Goran would do “anything” to get the credit.

Robyn stated that the Senate should not “jump in” without more information. Robyn had trouble with Goran stating that his instructor had said, “don’t worry about it” concerning the work for the course. Arturo remarked that he had looked into the late add issue for short-term courses. Arturo suspected that instructors were not informing their students of the add day deadlines. Goran had completed the coursework, but only received the credit during the Wintersession. Helene noted that the roster has to be turned in on the same day, but as she teaches a Saturday class at the Watsonville Center that is an impossibility; Helene tells her students that the last day is the following Monday. Nancy thanked the Student Senate.

IV.     Action
     A. Academic Search and Selection Board Policy, 5105-Nancy A. Brown
Nancy distributed copies of the BP and AR. The BP remains the same; there are some changes to the AR on Page 2.

Nancy said, regarding the issue of the retirees, that Claire had noted in the past the possible bias from some of the retirees regarding their replacements. Jose said it “could go either way”. The language stating that retirees could not serve on the hiring committees was returned. Nancy remarked on the other changes that had been made; the language “gender balance” was deleted, as it is illegal. Marcy noted that Nancy had “caved” on the issues of retirees. Nancy responded in the affirmative and stated that Claire said there are cases in which new people should not replicate people that they are replacing. This revision of the BP and AR is done in agreement with the administration, and this issue was important to the administration. This language would probably not satisfy Connerly or the Senate, but it does satisfy the Board; it is close to what the Senate would want.

Lisa had spoken with Sue Broadstone who had retired last year; Sue had agreed to a fresh vision and no retirees on the hiring committees. David remarked on the importance of having a person who is a qualified non-applicant for the position to serve on the committee as a expert in the field. If the administration were unable to obtain such a person, the retiree could serve at the pleasure of the administration if the wording of the BP were to allow for this unlikely event. Nancy noted that a discussion had taken place regarding obtaining a qualified person from CSU or SJ State. Vera remarked that if the intent were to not have a retiree with perceptions, other members of the committee would still have their own perception and could have bias. Nancy A. stated that there was no way to prevent bias.

When asked for his opinion regarding the language, Jose noted that Claire had articulated the reasons, the President had reinforced the reasons; it would be a bad precedence to have retirees on the committees. Jose stated that as he worked for the administration, he would not be the person to ask. David stated that the issue is not about retirees, but about having a qualified person from the field on the committee.  AR5105, 4b, #1, the sentence, “At least one of the committee members must be qualified in the discipline” will be added at the end of the paragraph.

Jamie, from VAPA, remarked that in the Art Department, retirees do not expect to serve on the hiring committees; the assumption is to prevent bias. In response to Jeff’s question as to why students are excluded on #4b, 3, Nancy A. replied that students are not included in the paperwork process, the student input is important in looking at the candidates teaching ability. Lisa clarified that the student does get to read the paperwork, the language changed in the early 1990’s. Jose noted the breach of confidence from those present that had admitted to serving on hiring committees and the process when they had served; they had signed a confidentiality statement. Marcy moved to approve the AR and BP 5105 if Nancy promised to never bring it back this semester and will trust Nancy to add the one sentence, “At least one of the committee members must be qualified in the discipline”. David S. seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Helene noted that she saw both sides of the issue concerning student involvement and thought the experience for students would be important to teach them how to apply for jobs. Nancy A. noted that the hiring process happens during exam time for students. Marcy noted that it would be inappropriate for students to view transcripts of potential, or previous teachers. David remarked that if he recalls correctly the language had changed at the request of the students since the time commitment was thought to be too great.

V.      Old Business
 A. Accreditation and Learner Outcomes Assessment
This item will be placed on the next agenda.

VI.    New Business
     A. Study Travel- Bette Hirsch
Bette distributed copies of the revised BP3100 and a study petition form with instructions.
The AR was put together in the 1980’s by a consortium, it is a good program but it is too expensive to remain in the consortium. The faculty wanted to handle their own program at a lower cost.

Bette remarked on the language regarding “18 or over”; the faculty would like a stronger screening of the students as a lot of high school students request to go on the trips. The petition is to provide students the opportunity to challenge the “18 or over”. Bette ran through the BP and the changes that had been made; this parallels concurrent enrollment. Page 4 lists the program requirements. Helene inquired if there had been problems from the high school students on the trips. Bette replied in the affirmative, some students had to be sent home, but the problems were no different than those from the older students. The rights and responsibilities for students were included in the document.

Bette noted the over 800 students that are concurrently enrolled at Cabrillo College. Bette would like feedback from the Senate. Nancy A. noted that today this would be an information item, when it came back to the Senate it would be as an action item. Bette remarked that this had gone to both DCC and the Board as an information item. Nancy will place this on the agenda for next time as an action item. Bette noted that this was an excellent opportunity for students. Jake Siskin is also on the committee, and is also available to answer questions.

     B. Electronic Books- Johanna Bowen
Johanna distributed a handout of the CCL- CC League Electronic Books 2002. The electronic access to resources committee is comprised of Librarians. The Librarians qualify the selection of resource materials; electronic books are to support students and remote users using quality resources. The committee is a consortium comprised of Librarians from every campus. Johanna cited a periodical that would normally cost $12,000.00 is available for $7,000.00 through the consortium.

Laura noted that they had begun offering books electronically a couple of weeks ago. There is no merit to student concerns that they would lose the physical books; both will be available. The instructions are available on the second page of the handout; users may go directly to netlibrary.com or by search of the Catalog or the Library on the web. The books are identical to the physical books; the same rules regarding plagiarism would apply. Letitia noted that there should be an existing reference for online books. Laura noted that the reader would have only 12 to 15 minutes of inactivity on a page; the user would then have to log on again. In response to Marcy’s question, Laura replied that the Library 10 class would receive instruction in this.

Laura asked that any questions be directed to the reference desk. Books are not available for download. Johanna noted that the electronic books are copyrighted. The user is given 7 minutes of inactivity, is provided with the table of contents and displays the book page by page. Any machine with a browser would be able to access the online books. Regarding the expansion of topics offered, Johanna stated that the Librarians involved had chosen the topics to start, there will be expansion and some subject areas are combined under one topic. Sylvia noted that most of the topics are generic. The electronic books would not allow students to not have to purchase the hardcopies. Johanna noted that if a text were offered electronically, the students could share it. Sylvia noted that it would depend on the book being offered; English books would be on the web.

     C. Registration timeline- Nancy K. and Jay
Nancy A. reminded that Senate of the issue of the students prior concerns with registration being available online before the release of the hardcopy of the schedule. Deborah Johnson had said that the issue would be taken care of. When Jay had spoken with Gloria, it had not been corrected.

Jay noted that the online schedule is available May 14, continuing students can register via Hawktalk or online May 16, and the hardcopy of the schedule is available May 20. Jay remarked that the timeline was not a fluke; it is “tough” to get the schedule out. Letitia remarked that she understood the variables, but the faculty need to make their students aware of this. Jay noted that the galleys are available to the Counselors at the same time as online, so they too can inform the students. Helene remarked that EOPS and disabled students get priority registration May 13; the galleys are available then.

David B. suggested limiting the amount of online enrollments; no more than half of a class could be enrolled online until the hardcopy becomes available and recommended that this suggestion be made to Gloria. Marcy concurred with David, and stated that this was “blatantly unfair”. Nancy K. suggested delaying online enrollment until the schedule was distributed. David B. concurred and stated that the college would not lose students by delaying the process. Nancy A. will speak with Claire and Gloria. Jeff, speaking for the students, would not have a problem delaying registration until May 20th. Nancy A. will include the Student Senate in the meeting with Gloria. Letitia would like a change to the process before the next registration. Letitia disagreed with David that the students should handle this issue, prior to the Senate speaking with Gloria. Nancy A. will speak with Jay Jackson, Jeff and Nancy K. regarding this issue before speaking with Gloria.

     D. Resignation at-large Senator, Chuck Smith-Nancy A.
Chuck had to resign from the Senate due to teaching responsibilities. Robyn will look at the issue concerning the rollover of terms and get back to Nancy.

Nancy noted that there are 2 meetings left in the semester. Nancy asked how many Senators planned to attend the CCFT party; 11 Senators volunteered, 4 had RSVP. Mexican food will be served. Nancy asked if money should be donated toward the party. Marcy suggested that Senators bring the booze. Nancy asked that everyone take something, either hors d’oeuvres or booze.

David B., referring to Title 5, stated that in order for a Senator to resign, the Senate would have to accept the resignation. Steve suggested taking a vote at the next meeting and count 105 days from that time, and that would provide the Senate with two extra weeks. David noted that the resignation is final only in writing and accepted by a majority vote.
 

VII.   Reports Continued
     A. Academic Senate Plenary Session- Nancy A.
There is a general movement to obtain political power by including student votes. The resolution had passed.

There have been changes in the Disciplines List; Nancy will send out the website to view the changes. The resolution passed stating that any English course shorter than 6 weeks should not be offered. The language “strongly urges” but does not prevent the offering. Letitia noted that offerings of 4-week courses during Wintersession had passed in the English Department.

David B. remarked that the resolutions can be used by faculty if needed, if for example an instructor does not want to teach a 4-week class they could refer to the resolution. Nancy stated that Cabrillo College has more autonomy than other community colleges. There were no learner outcome resolutions passed, but Accreditation Draft B is being resisted. David noted the two actual (perhaps unintended) themes were funding and Accreditation.

The Cabrillo College Chorus sang and were “impressive”. Nancy noted that the Academic State Senate has local state visits; the treasurer of the Academic State Senate will attend the next meeting.

Marcy commented on lobby day on May 30th. Marcy would like to get a bus of faculty and students to the State Legislature on that day. Jay recommended speaking with Dhyana Swann as she is planning a trip. Jeff noted that Gabe Gutierrez is also planning a trip for students. Nancy remarked that the Union was also planning on attending.

VIII.  Agenda Building
There were no further agenda items.

IX.     Items From the Floor
There were no items from the floor

X.      Adjournment
David B. moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 5:00pm.

FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES: March 12, 2002
3:00pm To 5:00pm, Room 1804