District Academic Senate

Unapproved Minutes

Thursday, June 15, 2006

I. Organizational Matters

I.1 Call to Order/Roll Call

The meeting was called to order at 2:40 p.m. by Co-Chair Catherine Cox.

Senators	A	P	Senators	A	P
Beggs (MC) AAS		X	Martin (MC) Technology	X
Berlani (WVC) Science		X	Mingione (WVC) AF/Bus	X
Braun (MC) Pres/Technology	X		Moles (MC) ESL		X
Brichko (MC) CATA		X	Morgan (WVC) LATC/Library		X
Brueckner (WVC) Fine Arts	X		Nash (WVC) Student Services		X
Buendia-Bangle (WVC) StServ	X		Ostrander (MC) Student Services		X
Burzynski (WVC) Math		X	Paicius (MC) AF/CATA		X
Cogswell (MC) AAS		X	Pape (WVC) English	X
Cox (MC) Commercial Serv.		X	Perlas (MC) Student Dev.		X
Ellis (WVC) Math		X	Rascov (WVC) Business	X
Hannigan (WVC) Language Arts	X		Rounds (MC) Communications		X
Juncker (MC) Communications		X	Rudy (WVC) PE	X
Kashima (MC) ESL		X	Shue (WVC) AAS	X
Kelly (WVC) Social Science		X	Smebye (MC) Comm’l Serv.	X
Laird (MC) Social Science		X	Szabados (MC) CATA		X
Lavallo (MC) Math		X	Ting (MC) Math	X
Mancini (MC) Hosp. Mgmt		X	Other: J.Henderson (WVCAS)	X
Guests: S.Arterberry, J.Atkins, N.Biltz, Cptn. Brody, K.Colson, P.Hartley, E.Kleppinger		X X X	Guests: J. Lucas, E. McAlister, A.Malchow, L.Mirch, J.Patton, F.Prochaska, J.Schwartz, S.Smith		X X X

I.2 Approval of the Minutes for May 2, 2006

The minutes for the May 2, 2006, meeting of the District Academic Senate were accepted and approved as submitted (M/S/P – Juncker/Mancini)

1.3 Order of the Agenda

No changes were made to the order of the agenda.

II. Oral Communication from the Public

The newly selected President of ACE, Ed Kleppinger introduced himself to the Senators.

Trustee Schwartz, referring to the May 25, 2006, minutes of the Mission College Academic Senate, took issue with a statement in the minutes quoting a statement by Trustee Polk at the Strategic Conversation on May 18^th. Dr. Schwartz stated that the Academic Senate set the format for the Strategic Conversation that was held with the Board. The format was set up so that all could speak openly and work together and move forward. The spirit of Mr. Polk’s comment was made with the intent to forget the past and look forward to the future in a positive and productive manner. Trustee Schwartz stated further that to use the strategic conversation meeting to “fish for quotes” appears to him to be a serious breach of faith. In addition Trustee Schwartz commented on a statement in the minutes that referred to Chancellor Arterberry and urged that there be some balance to the minutes. He believed that the strategic conversation was intended to serve as a beginning in forward movement.

III. Announcements & Information

No announcements or information were presented at today’s meeting.

IV. Old Business

A. Update Report on District Resolution and Strategic Conversation & Discuss Possible Future Actions

Cathy Cox reported that she had intended to do a historical summary for new Senators of events since the resolution. Since no new Senators were present, she proceeded with her update report.

Looking at the negotiation process and how it serves as a marker of the relationship and treatment of faculty by the administration, Cathy stated that it is her understanding that the negotiation process is not going well at this time. Ed Kleppinger, ACE President, stated that ACE is in informal mediation, conducting research, and the parties have agreed to work together and try to straighten things out. Chancellor Arterberry agreed, stating that to discuss the nature of the relationship and content of negotiations would be contrary to the direction provided by the mediator. Cathy reported that it is her understanding that SEIU has voted to go to formal impasse as negotiations are not going well.

Cathy reviewed the recommendations presented to the Academic Senate by the Resolution Implementation Task Force and noted that the recommendation to hold a District forum at each college is still pending. She noted further that it would be a violation of District policy for the Board of Trustees and the District Administration to take action on academic or professional matters without the approval and/or participation of the Academic Senate.

One of the recommendations of the task force was to hold a Strategic Conversation (SC) with the Board, Academic Senates and Classified Senates. Dianne McKay, Jim Wilczak and Albert Moore organized and facilitated the SC meeting. Cathy stated that, although the meeting was not as well attended as the Senate had hoped for, there was wide representation of the various constituent groups. The format of the meeting was intended to focus on and identify the issues of concern and was conducted in a dignified and professional manner. She facilitated the discussion on respect, and Trustees Polk and Schwartz were included in that discussion. Cathy emphasized that this meeting was intended to promote honest discussion and it did to some degree. Many people heard things that were hard to hear, and Trustee Polk’s remark was given as an honest response to a question. Cathy advised that she and Angelica are analyzing the transcripts and summary sheets from each discussion group. A summary is being prepared for a July Board meeting.

As Cathy continued with her report, she advised that a request for technical assistance has been submitted to the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, which could take place anytime from mid-August to September. Teams that provide assistance are in high demand and need flexibility. In addition, there is a need to accommodate Board members. Cathy noted that Board members have been attending Senate meetings more often and thanked those present for coming.

In keeping with the recommendations of the task force, Cathy reported that she is working with Heather Rothenberg, Staff Development Coordinator at Mission College, to conduct a workshop on shared governance for faculty and staff during a flex day. In response to the Senate’s resolution, the Academic Senates have been given a standing place on the agenda of the Board of Trustees’ meetings, and it is anticipated that that we will achieve a climate in which all employees can participate in discussions and make decisions.

Discussion was opened to the floor and Senator Ostrander referred to Trustee Polk’s remark as stated in the MC Academic Senate minutes. She stated that the conversation topic was on respect and everyone was asked to describe the most negative experience relative to respect. She used the issuing of pink slips as her most negative experience, and it was Trustee Polk’s tone that was offensive as well as remarks made by others. It was suggested by another Senator that it is important to consider Mr. Polk’s perspective, particularly considering his background in education. Mr. Polk needs to be informed of the background of our situation so that he may gain some appreciation for what has happened in this District. Another view stated is that once something is said, emotions are aroused that cannot be undone. Words have power and can be received in different ways, which could be viewed as a lack of respect.

As discussion continued, it was stated that the primary issue is much larger. Alex Braun, past President of the Mission College Academic Senate has stated that he began his term with a Resolution of No Confidence in the Chancellor and ended his term with a resolution to suspend Senate operations. During that three year period, it seems as though the Board of Trustees does not take notice until voices are raised loudly. The larger problem is one of communication and based on the faculty’s feeling of betrayal and not being respected. (A motion to extend discussion on this item for another ten minutes passed (M/S/U – Cogswell/Juncker). The Chancellor and Trustee Schwartz stated their belief that Trustee Polk did not intend any malice and remarked that Mr. Polk apologized for his comments to several people the next day.

As for the format of the SC, the questions were developed by the coordinators. Both the Chancellor and Trustee Schwartz agreed that communication is essential. The Board members have been actively discussing and considering campus climate and morale since the pink slips were issued. Dr. Schwartz noted that shared governance processes do not always include the Board of Trustees, and it has to work both ways. The Board needs to exercise its lawful prerogative, and everyone needs to participate in the shared governance process. Once again, Senator Kashima stated that the problem is that the Board minutes do not reflect Board discussions as do the Senate minutes, which provide the Board, faculty and staff the full tenor of the Senate meetings.

At this time, Cathy asked the Senators to consider possible future actions. She advised that on June 8, 2006, follow up letters were sent to WASC and the State Chancellor’s Office informing these agencies of the current status and progress to date. Cathy read the letter to the Senators and copies are attached to these minutes as Appendix A and B.

She reminded the Senators that the resolution suspending Senate operations was extended to October 3, 2006. After a brief review of the recommendations presented by the task force, it was noted that the District Academic Senate resolved to hold at least two meetings during the summer. It is anticipated that a second meeting will be held in late July, early August. It was suggested that the task force be directed to meet as soon as possible to finalize behavioral objectives already drafted for presentation at the next District Academic Senate meeting.

In closing, it was noted that the FCMAT report will be completed by late August and a copy will be provided to the Academic Senate and each of the constituent representatives on DBAC. A request was made that the summary of the Strategic Conversation be sent to all Senators as well, and it was noted that the summary notes of the strategic conversation are attached to the last Board agenda.

B. Consider Recommendation of MC Academic Senate to Investigate Possible Violations of the Brown Act with regard to the Funding and Approval of International Students Program and China Recruitment Initiative.

President Cox noted that this issue has been on the agenda for the Mission College Academic Senate, and at its last meeting, it was resolved that the issue be brought to the District Academic Senate for consideration as to how to proceed. Documents were distributed to those present listing data based on public records as prepared by Aaron Malchow. It was noted that anything that could not be verified has not been listed. The documents consisted of a timeline, developed to better understand the sequence of events, and a list of possible improprieties with particular reference to the China Initiative.

As discussion ensued, it was noted that for the first time in three years, the Land Corporation’s agenda states that the Board of Trustees will be in attendance and business may be conducted, agenda items are explained and indicate information and action – all the elements required for proper conduction of meetings for a body subject to the Brown Act. It was also remarked that a request was made to the Attorney General regarding this matter, and the response indicated that this matter should be taken up with the District Attorney. At the MC Academic Senate, it was suggested that the data be reviewed by an attorney to determine its validity and that funds for an attorney might be sought from the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges.

Several Senators indicated that they would like to see the exact sections of the Brown Act cited in the data to determine if there are sufficient grounds to proceed further. Another suggestion was to bring this matter to the Board of Trustees to provide them with the opportunity to respond before taking the next step. It was reported that the matter of the China Initiative did go to the Board, people spoke to the issue and, despite the information presented, the Board approved the purchase of the tickets to China after the fact. It was emphasized that this is not a personal issue but rather a matter of following policy. The taxpayers elect the members of the Board of Trustees and expect them to be accountable to the citizens and take responsibility for their actions. This matter concerns the distribution of public funds and transparency. The public has to be provided with information and an opportunity to give input before decisions are made by the Board. It is the faculty’s responsibility to ensure that the Board behaves responsibly and is held accountable.

In response to a question relative to the options left to the Board since the tickets had already been purchased, it was stated that this issue is not intended as a punitive action, but as an investigative action. Several Senators addressed this matter at a Board meeting and were silenced. It is the responsibility of the Senate to ensure that public policy and public funds are spent the way the public intends, using the proper processes. There will be no sense of closure on the China Initiative unless all facts are known and all are absolved of wrongdoing.

A Senator opined that this investigation appears to be an effort to squelch the China Initiative, and in response, it was stated that this issue is not intended for that purpose. It was noted that after the Senate passed its resolution, faculty were asked to show examples of lack of respect and lack of participation in shared governance, and this investigation is viewed as a response to that request, looking at the lack of transparency, the lack of respect, the lack of shared governance relative to specific issues without coming to faculty and to DBAC. One Senate President was told that the China initiative did not fall under the purview of the Academic Senate. The other Senate President was not informed of the initiative until much later. This investigation has brought forward two specific examples of the Senate’s concerns and is indicative of how the Board has been operating for some time, i.e., the Kuwait proposal, without thought to what is needed by faculty, staff and students. It is recognized that the Chancellor cannot come to the Academic Senate with every possible idea, but when these ideas deal with academic issues, it is imperative that they be brought to the Academic Senate. A Senator stated that one has to work very hard to make faculty and staff this angry and it is apparent that the Board does not get the message. (At this time, a motion to postpone discussion on this matter to the next District Academic Senate meeting failed and discussion continued.)

Trustee Schwartz stated that if he or the Board has done something wrong, it is appropriate to hold them accountable and punish the Board accordingly. However, it is a serious matter to imply criminal actions. He urged the Senators to review the Brown Act and the Attorney General’s booklet on the Brown Act. He noted that the Brown Act does not require narrative minutes and neither the Brown Act nor District Policy states that a Board member cannot attend meetings without the permission of the Board. His meetings with Mr. Kao were social events and do not require permission from the Board.

Trustee Schwartz acknowledged that the Board made a mistake. The tickets for the China trip were purchased before it was realized that anything over $10,000 for foreign travel required prior approval of the Board. If the Board had not approved the purchase, the only option left was to forfeit the tickets at a cost to the District. He emphasized that if most of the faculty do not want to proceed with the China initiative, it will not go forward. He encouraged Senators to attend Board meetings. He noted that members of the Academic Senate were not present when the Board voted to go to action minutes, and that the Board recently voted against a motion to return to summary minutes.

The Chancellor advised that, since the Senate’s resolution, he has established the Senate Roundtable discussions with participation of the leadership of the Academic Senates and the Classified Senates, and stated he has brought all initiatives to the roundtable discussions - the China Initiative, the Kuwait proposal, and now, the Shanghai Initiative. He has worked very hard to maintain communication with the Academic Senates and the Classified Senates and he will continue to do so.

At this time, the following motion passed after a motion to call for the question (M/S/U – Juncker/Kelly) passed unanimously (M/S/P – Kashima/Cogswell):

“to close discussion on this topic and postpone further discussion to the next District Academic Senate meeting.”

A motion to extend today’s District Academic Senate meeting for an additional 20 minutes to deal with the new business item passed unanimously (M/S/U – Kelly/Cogswell).

V. New Business

A. Discuss Approval of Sheriff’s Department Contract with West Valley College and Consider Exception to District Academic Senate’s Resolution relative to Approval of Administration of Justice Curriculum

Ken Colson, Chair of the Administration of Justice (AJ) Department, Linda Mirch and Captain Brody of the Sheriff’s Training Unit were present at today’s meeting to ask the District Academic Senate to reconsider its past decision and grant the Chair of the West Valley College Curriculum Committee the permission to approve curriculum for one AJ course. The committee’s policy permits the chair to approve special topic courses if the Curriculum Committee is not meeting or not in session. Ken emphasized that the department is not doing anything outside of the resolution. He explained further that this is not new curriculum and, in addition to providing a service to the Sheriff’s Department, it will energize the department. These courses are vital to the program. He explained that this is not an exception, and is not intended to sidestep the Senate’s resolution. Ken stated that he has served as Academic Senate President and he is a staunch supporter of faculty and has the interest of faculty at heart.

Ken also emphasized that this proposal started with him and Linda Mirch and that Jeff Schwartz was only consulted as an expert in this area. One course was approved prior to the Senate’s resolution and he has responded to the concerns of the Academic Senate and the Chair of the Curriculum Committee. Linda Mirch acknowledged this project is important and that she views it as an opportunity to build a partnership with the college and the Sheriff’s office, a highly ethical enforcement agency. Fred Prochaska stated that many people have worked together on this project and the approval of the curriculum is the last step. He expressed his hope that the District Academic Senate will allow the curriculum to move forward.

Ken was asked when the agreement was made with the Sheriff’s Department and when the contract was signed. Ken acknowledged that the contract was signed March 31, 2006, after the Academic Senate’s resolution was implemented.

Discussion ensued, and it was stated that some would have liked to have seen this matter brought to the Board rather than the Academic Senate in order to let the Board know the impact the resolution is having on getting things accomplished. Several Senators expressed the view that it was never intended that the resolution be used to obstruct movement, while others argued that the agreement was signed after the resolution. A motion with an approved amendment urging the WVC Chair of the Curriculum Committee to consider approval of the AJ courses failed. It was suggested by a Senator that if the course is already listed, the course can be taught for one or two semesters under special numbers without change. It was suggested that the course be offered and that the department wait for the District Academic Senate to make its decision on how it intends to proceed relative to further action after the October 3, 2006, deadline.

In closing, it was stated that there is a sense that the approach of the Board and the Administration towards faculty is to divide and conquer and chip away at the Senate’s resolve. The Senate lifted the suspension on hiring committees in good faith due to reports that the process in negotiations had improved. Accreditation came in with a request similar to the Administration of Justice Department’s request and the request was denied. Months have passed since the Senate’s resolution and the Board hasn’t changed. Things have deteriorated. A motion to close discussion on this matter and all pending questions passed (M/S/P – Cogswell/Paicius).

VI. Future Agenda Items

No new items were added at today's meeting.

VII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. (M/S/U - Cogswell/Juncker). These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.