District Academic Senate

Unapproved Minutes

Tuesday, May 12, 2005

 

   I.    Organizational Matters

 

   I.1  Call to Order/Roll Call

         The meeting was called to order at 2:20 p.m. by Co-Chairs Vivian Lock and Dianne McKay.

Senators

   A

   P

Senators

   A

   P

Allen       (WVC)  Math

    X

   

Martin      (MC)  Technology

    X

 

Berlani     (WVC) Science

 

   X

McKay    (MC) Communications

 

   X

Braun      (MC) Pres/Technology

    X

 

Musat      (MC)  Math

 

   X

Brichko   (MC)  CATA

   

   X

Ostrander (MC)  Student Develop

 

   X

Brueckner  (WVC)  Fine Arts

    

   X

Pape        (WVC)  English

 

   X

Buendia-Bangle (WVC) StudtServ

    

   X

Perlas       (MC)  Student Dev.

 

   X

Cox       (MC) Comm’l Services

   

   X

Rascov     (WVC) Business

 

   X

Cogswell (MC)  AAS

   

   X

Rath         (MC)  AF/CIT

 

   X

Dooley   (MC)  AAS

 

   X

Reed        (WVC)  Social Science

 

   X

Hannigan  (WVC) Language Arts  

 

   X

Rudy        (WVC)  PE

    X

 

Harris   (MC)  AF/Comm

   

   X

Smebye  (MC)  Comm’l Serv.

 

   X

Hasty    (WVC) Social Science

 

   X

Szabados (MC)  CATA

 

   X

Henderson (WVC) Bdget Analyst

 

   X

Zeisler  (MC)  Communications

 

   X

Kashima  (MC)  ESL

 

   X

 

 

 

Kim     (WVC)  Library/LATC

   X

 

Guests: M.Chan, F.Chow,

 

   X

Kuhn   (WVC)   AF/PE

 

   X

Y.Coleman, A.Crosby-Lundin,

 

   X

Laird    (MC)  Social Science

   

   X

M.Jahan, C.Kuri, K.Raczkowski,

   

   X

Lavallo   (MC)  Math

   

   X

L.Schreibstein, LA. Sippel,

 

   X

Lock        (WVC) Pres/Bus

 

   X

C. Vinson

 

   X

          

 I.2    Order of the Agenda

            It was agreed (M/S/U – Bangle/Harris) that guests will be accommodated as necessary.

 

 I.3    Approval of the Minutes

         The minutes for the March 17, 2005, meeting of the District Academic Senate were accepted and approved with the following correction (M/S/P – Brueckner/Bangle) to Page 1, Item 1.4.a:

 

            “Alex announced that Betti Cogswell, who is a certificated Parliamentarian member of the National Association of Parliamentarians will serve as the official parliamentarian at today’s meeting.”

 

 1.4   Announcements & Information

         a)  Alex Braun is not able to attend today’s meeting and Dianne McKay, Vice President of the Mission College Academic Senate will serve as Co-Chair with Vivian Lock.

            b)  A flyer announcing a reception for Classified Employees was distributed to the Senators requesting that they notify the classified in their divisions and post the flyer in their division offices.

            c) The MCAS Graduation Committee is seeking twelve Senators to participate in the graduation ceremony.  The Senators were asked to notify the Academic Senate Office if they wish to serve as a Marshal or as a Reader.

            d) Senator Bangle passed posters around she received at the ASCCC Spring Plenary Session, “Keep the Doors Open.”

            e) Dr. Chong is requesting that Mission College faculty provide him with any stories regarding outstanding students for recognition at graduation.

II.     Oral Communication from the Public

            Student Trustee Kellie Raczkowski advised the Senate of the following resolution adopted at yesterday’s MC ASB meeting:

                 

            “Whereas, The Mission College faculty are crucial to the success of students, and

 

            Whereas, Our college faculty are entitled to appropriate support, including competitive salaries, benefits, and the uncompromised and continuing respect of the College, District, Board, and Chancellor, and

 

            Whereas, The Mission College faculty have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to students since the inception of our college, and

 

            Whereas, Mission College faculty salaries and benefits have fallen far behind those of neighboring colleges, including Foothill, DeAnza, San Jose City and Evergreen, and

 

            Whereas, The latest health premium cap proposal from the district will slash faculty benefits and salary even further, and

 

            Whereas, The failure to offer a competitive salary/benefits package to our current and future faculty will seriously compromise the ability of our college to offer students necessary support, leadership and academic excellence, and

 

            Whereas, The Associated Students, as representatives of all Mission College students, wish to call for a solution to this major dispute, and further wish to show unwavering support for our valued faculty,

 

            Therefore, Let It Be Resolved that the Associate Students declare their support for our faculty in this current conflict, recognizing the need for faculty to take action to preserve the long-term interests of the college, including meetings, workplace actions and further necessary steps as needed, and

 

            Let It Be Further Resolved, That the Associated Students request that the district, in a timely manner, act to regain the confidence of our esteemed faculty and ensure the continuing opportunities for students to enjoy an excellent education at Mission College.”

 

            Kellie explained that the above resolution may not be the final version of the resolution.  She stated further that the resolution has been agendized for discussion at the next ASB meeting.  Any comments or concerns should be directed to Kellie at Ext. 5402.

 

            Dianne McKay advised that this item will be placed on the May 19th agenda of the Mission College Academic Senate for discussion.   She encouraged Kellie to attend that meeting as the Academic Senate values input from the ASB.

 

III.    Business

 

  A.    Consider Resolution to Recognize Classified Staff

            President Lock advised that the Board of Trustees passed a resolution declaring the week of May 16 through May 20, 2005 as Classified Employees’ Week.  This item was placed on today’s agenda in the event that the members of the District Academic Senate want to endorse the Board’s resolution or acknowledge classified staff in some other way.

 

            A lengthy discussion ensued, and there were some Senators that questioned the intent of the Board’s resolution and the motivation behind it.   The Senators also questioned whether or not the resolution only applied to this year.  It was generally agreed that it is very important that faculty recognize the classified staff and demonstrate to the Board that both faculty and classified support each other and stand together. A resolution was presented and failed, and a motion to extend discussion on this matter was passed unanimously (M/S/U – Harris/Smebye).

 

            As discussion continued, several Senators opined that the Board’s resolution is meaningless and that the Senate’s action should not be linked with the Board’s resolution. Several Senators offered suggestions as to how to indicate faculty’s support for classified with some action behind it.  After consideration, the following resolution was presented and passed unanimously (M/S/U – McKay/Harris):

 

"Whereas, The West Valley-Mission Community College District (WVMCCD) Classified staff are invaluable to the quality of education and services for students at West Valley College and Mission College; and

 

Whereas, The District Academic Senate recognizes that without the Classified staff, student access to education would be severely curtailed; and

 

Whereas, The WVMCCD Board of Trustees has declared May 16 - May 20, 2005 Classified Employee Week in the WVMCCD;

 

Therefore, Be It Resolved, That the West Valley-Mission District Academic Senate endorse and support the WVMCCD Board of Trustees' action; and

 

         Be It Further Resolved, That in light of their resolution, the District Academic Senate implore the Board of Trustees to follow through with wages and benefits that will enhance the quality of life of these valued employees.”

 

            The above resolution will be forwarded to the appropriate parties as soon as possible.

  

 B.     Consider Revision to Adopted 508 Policy

            Len Schreibstein, Coordinator of DESP at WVC, presented the Senators with a revised version of the 508 Policy for consideration.  Len explained that members of the Mission College and West Valley College programs met and prepared the revised version, which is essentially the same policy adopted by the District Academic Senate. The primary difference is that the revision is more consistent with District policy language.  The revised version is as follows:

 

            “The West Valley-Mission Community College District recognizes the increasing importance of equal access to electronic and information technology as more learning opportunities are based on these resources.  The District is committed to providing equal access to all members of the campus community and supporting the open access policy of the California Community College system by providing barrier-free access to all students, including access to electronic and information technology in accordance with State and Federal mandates (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and California Senate Bill 105).  The District is committed to expanding the boundaries of access beyond the physical setting for students with disabilities in recognition that students are entitled to equal access to electronic information and technology.”

 

            After a brief discussion, the revised 508 policy was accepted and approved unanimously (M/S/U – Smebye/Szabados).  The revised policy will be forwarded to the Board for approval.  Vivian and Dianne thanked Len Schreibstein, Helen Ostrander, Carol Toppel and Ann Crosby-Lundin for their hard work on this matter.                                    

 

C.      Consider Endorsement of a Course Management System

            Cindy Vinson and Fred Chow updated the Senate on the work of the task force charged to find a course management system to tie in with Datatel.  The task force is comprised of faculty and staff from both colleges who are working together on this task. 

 

            Cindy and Fred advised that the intent is to extend course management system (CSM) tools to all faculty who choose to use the tools.  Ten requests for proposals were issued, eight vendors responded, and the team selected five vendors to provide a demonstration.  The task force ultimately selected two vendors for consideration: Web CT and Angel.  Both provided demonstrations that were opened to any interested personnel. 

 

            The District Academic Senate members were advised that the decision of the team will be made in June, and it is intended that the team’s selection of a vendor will be brought to the Board of Trustees as soon as possible thereafter.  The Senators were advised that both products are excellent and would serve the district equally well.  It is expected that pilots will be run in the Fall and broader implementation will take place in 2006.  In essence, the task force is requesting that the District Academic Senate give the committee the power to choose between the two CMS vendors, Web CT or Angel.  The Senators were assured that references from other campuses that have specifically worked with Datatel and a CMS will be researched and the task force will practice due diligence relative to the system’s compatibility with Datatel. 

 

            The following motion was made (M/S – Hannigan/Szabados) with an approved amendment (M/S/U – Cox/Bangle):

 

            “that the District Academic Senate give the committee the power to choose between the two course management systems, Web CT or Angel.

 

            A lengthy discussion ensued as to whether or not it is appropriate for the DAS to empower a committee to make a decision without knowing what the decision is beforehand and if this action will set an undesirable precedence. It was stated that the Senate delegates power to subcommittees on a regular basis. It was noted, however, that there is a distinction between endorsing a decision before it is made and granting the power of the DAS to another entity. Concern was also expressed relative to the staff size of one of the vendors, as well as the company’s financial security. Members of the task force indicated that the committee is well aware of those concerns and fully intends to research and address those concerns. The difference between the two vendors is infinitesimal. At this time, a motion to extend discussion on this item an additional ten minutes was approved (M/S/U – Bangle/Szabados).

 

            In light of the 508 Policy just passed by the DAS, another concern is whether or not the vendors’ products will address access issues and will be easily adaptable for instructors and students to use. If the DAS approves the request of the committee, it was suggested that DISC and DSPS staff be consulted, as well as other pertinent groups, before any decision is made. The Senators were advised that the RFP’s specifically addressed 508 Policy concerns and the committee is considering those issues carefully.

 

            If the DAS empowers the committee to choose, it is anticipated that the committee would take the proposal to the Board in October and be able to implement pilot studies in the Spring. If the Senate does not agree to empower the committee, the timeline and the entire process will be delayed.  The RFP’s cannot be sent out and nothing will happen on this matter until September, and that will delay the process for another year.  A motion to extend discussion on this item for another five minutes was passed (M/S/U – Brueckner/Reed).

 

            As discussion continued, the Senators considered the advantage of delaying the process or moving forward. Vivian explained that the task force has been working since the beginning of this academic year.  DBAC has authorized $85,000 for any Course Management System selected by the task force, and each college has budgeted $10,000 to be used for training.  It was explained that the $10,000 in Mission College’s budget is tagged for Distance Learning. 

 

            The Senators asked how the decision will be made by the committee members – consensus or votes. If the process is consensus, and the committee does not reach consensus, who will make the final decision? The Senators were advised that the committee generally makes decisions by consensus.  Fred and Cindy stated that the committee has moved through the process so far using consensus and on-going dialogue.  The decision has been obvious. Datatel and budget are the drivers, and the decision will not be a difficult one.  The committee will report back to the DAS in the Fall.

 

            Ultimately, it was stated that it appears that the committee has done the necessary legwork in this area.  It was also noted that the Academic Senate appointed these faculty members to this committee.  The task force has provided ample opportunities for interested faculty to attend their meetings and have welcomed feedback.  Postponing the decision would only serve to delay the process and impact students and instructors in their efforts to provide quality instruction.  A call for the question passed (M/S/P – Bangle/Harris) and the above motion was passed.   The committee will report back to the DAS in the Fall.

 

D.      Review Draft of District Faculty Hiring Policy

            It was agreed, by consensus, that the Senators will review and approve the document section by section. 

 

            It was agreed that the title of the document should be changed to District Full-Time Faculty Hiring Policy & Procedures (M/.S/U – Smebye/Harris).

 

            Section I (Prologue) was approved as written (M/S/U – Berlani/Bangle).

 

            Section II.C.1, (Hiring Committee Composition) sentence on line 49-50:  “In addition, a member of the District’s diversity committee, or its designee, shall/should serve on the committee.”  This sentence was described as the most contentious portion of the policy.  Dianne stated that she discussed the matter with some members of the District Diversity committee, asked them the intent and vision of this statement, and the following four major concerns were noted:

 

                  1.   What authority will the District Faculty and Staff Diversity Committee member have? Will s/he serve as an advisory member? Will the member be a voting member or a non-voting member?  The document as written does not make that clear.

                  2.   To whom will that member report and why?  What would be their purpose?

                  3.   Based on the authority of this member, what kind of expertise or training will that member have in order to participate effectively in their role?  Will they need legal training or personnel training?  What type of training will they need in order to handle whatever situations may arise?

                  4.   How will members of the District Diversity Committee adequately staff the hiring committees?  Will they have designees?  How will the system work?

 

            In light of these concerns, it was suggested that the specific line referring to the member of the District’s Diversity Committee be pulled from the policy for now and refer the concerns back to the District’s Faculty & Staff Diversity Committee for clarification and bring it’s recommendation back to the Academic Senate for consideration.

            Discussion ensued, and answers to some of the questions were noted. For one, the member should be a non-voting member, the committee could request that the member not sit on the committee, and the person would have legal and HR training.  It was stated, however, that there are additional questions and concerns regarding this matter that should be addressed.

 

            Ultimately, the Senators passed the following motion (M/S/P – Cox/Hannigan):

 

            “that Section II.C.I (Hiring Committee Composition), the sentence on line 49-50 (“In addition, a member of the District’s diversity committee, or its designee, shall/should serve on the committee.”) be removed from consideration by the District Academic Senate at this time and referred back to the District’s Faculty and Staff Diversity Committee to address the questions proposed by the Academic Senate.”

 

            Another issue of concern in this section is the statement that no fewer than five members will serve on a hiring committee.  The Senators were advised that many faculty object to the requirement of five members and urge the Senate to reconsider the current existing requirement of three to five members.  It was explained that five members is recommended to ensure diversity representation on the committee and that hiring committee members can be drawn from associate faculty and classified as well. 

 

            As discussion continued, a motion (M/S – Berlani/Harris) was made to approve Section II as is without the fourth sentence on line 49-50, and revisit other issues of concern in the section when the Diversity Committee brings its recommendation back to the District Academic Senate.  If the District Academic Senate does not get through the policy today, the 1990 District Faculty Hiring Policy will remain in effect and will be implemented, as written, in faculty hires currently taking place.  A call for the question passed unanimously (M/S/U – Bangle/Cogswell) and the motion to approve Section II as stated above was passed (M/S/P – Berlani/Harris). 

 

            Section III (Advertising and Recruitment) was approved as submitted (M/S/P – Harris/Hannigan).

 

            Section IV (Paper Screening and Interview Questions) was approved as submitted (M/S/P – Harris/Reed).

 

            Section V (Applicant Pool Screening) was approved as submitted (M/S/P Dooley/Harris).

 

            Section VI (Interview Process) was approved deleting an extraneous parentheses in paragraph E and the deletion of paragraph F (M/S/U – Smebye/Hannigan).

 

            Section VII (Reference Checks) was approved as submitted (M/S/U – Harris/Dooley).

 

            Section VIII (Final Selection) was approved as submitted (M/S/P – Bangle/Harris).

 

            Section IX (Candidates and Associate Faculty Pool) was approved as submitted (M/S/U – Smebye/Kuhn).  At this time, it was recommended that a flow chart be designed to indicate the hiring process.  Concern was expressed that there is nothing in the policy that provides a guarantee of interview for associate faculty.  The Senators were reminded that both college senates rejected any such guarantee for associate faculty.

 

            Section X (Revisions to this Document) was approved as submitted (M/S/U – Reed/Cox).

 

            The Senators were assured that this is a living document and changes can be made to the policy as needed.  The District Academic Senate will consider the issues of concern presented at today’s meeting when the District Faculty & Staff Diversity Committee brings its recommendation back to the Senate for consideration.  At that time, the Senate can address any other concerns that may arise. 

 

            The District Full-Time Faculty Hiring Policy falls under the purview of the Academic Senate and amendments to the policy can only be made by the Academic Senate.  The policy will be presented to the Board of Trustees for approval, and since the Board has agreed to rely primarily on the advise of the Academic Senate, it is expected that the policy will be approved and implemented in time for the new hires.

 

           Senator Kashima, who serves on the District Faculty and Staff Diversity Committee, stated that the committee will need more specific direction as to what the Senate is asking of the committee.  It was agreed that each college senate will develop questions and forward them to the committee to be integrated with those concerns addressed at today’s meeting.  

            

IV.   Future Agenda Items  - No new items were added at today’s meeting.

 

 V.       Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. (M/S/U – Cox/Reed). These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.