WVMCCD
District Academic Senate
April 10, 2003
Dear Chancellor
Arterberry, President Constantin and the Board of
Trustees:
The District Academic
Senate of WVMCCD, with guidance
from the President of the State Academic Senate for California Community Colleges,
has directed the two Senate presidents to present you with a list of specific
complaints, and it requests a written response from you within 72 hours.
The Academic Senate has
addressed the Board and the Chancellor and
requested that all March
15 notices be rescinded (presented
at March 18
Board meeting). The Senate presented resolutions to the Chancellor and
Board on March 6
(written), March 8 (oral) and March 20 (oral). A primary complaint was the lack of faculty participation in
academic decisions. As of
today, the Chancellor and Board have not responded to these Senate complaints.
Background: "The
Academic Senate (Title 5 Article 2 Section 53200) means
an organization whose
primary function is to make recommendations with
respect to academic and
professional matters."
Relevant matters in this
case are: curriculum,
educational programs, institutional planning and
budget.
The Board of Trustees of
WVMCCD has agreed to rely primarily on the
advice of the Academic
Senate.
Our complaints fall into
several areas: decisions have been made without
the appropriate level of
faculty participation; decisions have been made
out of accordance with
laws or policies; academic programs are being
decimated, seriously
jeopardizing our ability to be effective
educational institutions;
and the previous climate of trust and
cooperation in the
district has been replaced with distrust and suspicion.
Specifics:
1. The decision (upon the
Chancellor's recommendation) to send lay off
notices to 60 full time
faculty and not to re-employ associate faculty
in each targeted program
has the effect of decimating academic programs
with no participation of
the Academic Senates.
In the spirit of
ensuring "Faculty roles in
budget processes" we must
assume that faculty
should participate when budgets are created as well
as when major reductions
are made---especially when the result is to
reduce academic
programs. The Chancellor did not
ensure that there was
faculty participation in
areas of Senate [1]
responsibility. Prior to March
15 notices, the
Academic Senates needed to be involved specifically in
district-wide planning
and decisions that affect academic programs and
services.
2. The District-wide Education Services
and Program Council was
developed and first met
on 2/18/03 with NO FACULTY representation. (As per the attached memo). The purpose of this committee is to " begin addressing
the
Chancellor's charge to
make recommendations re. short-term and long term
strategies for the more
efficient administration of programs and services." Clearly this committee is a violation
of the spirit and the letter of the law.
3. The critical period
for decision-making was the month of
February---when the
serious state budgetary picture first became
evident. The colleges and district needed
additional meetings and a task
force to respond quickly
to financial crises. Instead of
convening a
task force or giving
extra tasks to existing bodies, there were 2 DBAC
meetings scheduled for
February and one was cancelled. So
for nearly
four weeks, from Feb
6-Mar 4, the highest shared governance budgetary
body of the district at
the most urgent period in the crisis did not
meet. Decisions were being made, but clearly
not with faculty
participation.
4. As a new administrator
in the district, the Chancellor did not attend
many District Council and
DBAC meetings during the fall
semester---thus he missed
out on the debates and positions expressed by
members, in these
critical committees. While these
are advisory groups,
the prudent choice for a
new chancellor would have been to attend and
learn.
5. The Chancellor
appointed two Mission College interim presidents
against the strong
opposition of Mission College leaders and representative groups. The college had different choices and
excellent rationales for each.
What Mission College needed most was stability. Instead, the college has had three
presidents in one academic year---and not the internal candidate who could have
provided stability.
6. On several occasions,
the chancellor publicly stated he may send March 15th notices to all academic
employees----which would have resulted in a violation of the law.
7. The Chancellor put a
unilateral freeze on faculty travel/conference
funds ---in violation of
ACE contract.
8. The Chancellor put the
topic of freezing all sabbatical leaves on
pre-Board agenda---in
violation of ACE contract.
9. The decisions of March 15 have resulted
in a huge slashing of the twenty-seven departments listed on the attached
document. The Academic Senate
never received an explanation of the effects of faculty dismissals on the
targeted programs and services, nor an explanation of how students’ needs
will be met after dismissals. Since the Academic Senates were not invited to
participate in planning for these reductions, the Senate needs to see the
District’s plan.
Footnote 1: at 1 pm
today, April 10, the Academic Senate presidents received for the first time a
copy of the criteria used in developing a list of faculty to receive
March 15 notices. This list was developed outside of
participatory
governance policies and
laws. See attached document
“Recession of March 15 Notices”).
ACTION
The District Academic
Senate requests a written response to these complaints to be delivered to Linda
King and Jane Patton by Wed. April 15.
(Note: at meeting of 5:00
April 10, the AS Presidents and Chancellor agreed to “in a timely
manner” as the deadline).
The response should
include:
1. An inventory of the negative effects on
each academic program and
service areas subject to
the March 15 notices; the rationale for each cut
and a plan for a remedy
for the negative effects for each program and
service.
2. A plan for improving each of our areas
of complaints above.
3. Any other proposed
remedies.
Sincerely,
Linda King, Ph., D.
Jane Patton, Ed. D.
Co-chairs, WVMCCD
Academic Senate