Mission College Academic Senate
Ext.
5413
Unapproved Minutes
Thursday,
September 7, 2006
|
Senators |
A |
P |
Senators |
A |
P |
|
Beggs (Ext. 5188)
AAS |
|
X |
Martin (Ext. 5356)
Tech |
|
|
|
Brichko(Ext.
5222) CATA |
|
|
Moles (Ext. 5113)
ESL |
|
X |
|
Broady (ASB) |
|
X |
Ostrander (x5274)
StudDev. |
|
X |
|
Cogswell (Ext.
5388) AAS |
|
X |
Paicius
(x5413) AF/CATA |
|
|
|
Cox (x5165) Pres/Com Svc |
|
X |
Pembrook (x 5275) ComServ. |
|
|
|
Hernas (x5169) Com Serv. |
|
X |
Perlas (x5041) Stud.Dev. |
|
X |
|
Juncker (x5229)
Comm |
|
X |
Rounds (Ext.
5288) Com. |
|
|
|
Kashima (x.
5319) ESL |
|
|
Thickpenny (x5287 )
CATA |
|
X |
|
Laird (x 5186)
Soc Sci |
|
|
Ting (x 5330)
Math |
|
X |
|
Lavallo (Ext. 5399) Math |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guests: Aaron
Malchow |
|
|
Guests: |
|
|
II. Approval
of the Minutes
III. Order of
the Agenda – It was agreed to consider item
VIII. A. “Discuss and Consider Proposals Regarding Composition of Mission
College Presidential Search Committee” prior to committee appointments, item
VI. C.
IV. Oral Communication
from the Public
V. Information
& Announcements
Char Perlas
announced that Club Day will be held on Tuesday, September 12, from 10 – 2 in
the Campus Center quad. Club advisors
are asked to contact Carolyn Kuri.
Christine Vode(?) is also very active in the planning of this event.
VI. Administrative
Business/Actions/Appointments
A. Curriculum
Committee Report – no report was submitted.
B.
Staff
Recognition
At this point, the revised order of the agenda moved to item VIII. A.
VIII. Old
Business
A. Discuss and
Consider Proposals Regarding Composition of Mission College Presidential Search
Committee – As she was asked to do at the last MCAS meeting, President
Cathy Cox has spoken to the Chancellor about the composition of past
Presidential hiring committees. He was
able to give her the list of committee members for Frank Chong’s hiring
committee. His understanding was that
this was the same committee make-up that was used for the hiring of Chris
O’Hearn although he did not have direct knowledge of that; however, he was
surprised by the small size of the committee.
Cathy passed out a list of the committee membership for Frank’s hiring. It included 7 people plus the consultant (one
community member, two administrators, two faculty, one classified, and one
student). Current HR guidelines include
10 people: 4 administrators, two faculty, two classified, a student, and a
community representative. Cathy carried
back to the Chancellor the Senate’s unhappiness with the fact that the hiring
procedures being used were not approved by the Senate and the MCAS request that
the committee have at least 50% faculty on the committee.
The
Chancellor’s response was that he was quite willing to have four faculty on the
committee, to match the four administrators.
However, he reminded the Senate that the hiring procedures themselves
were approved by District Council, which is a shared governance body. The fact that the Academic Senate did not
separately approve the procedures does not negate the fact that we did have
input into the process through our representatives on that council. Since this is an administrative hiring
procedure, it is not solely the decision of faculty whether the procedure goes
through or not, and it was the overall decision of District Council that they
should be approved. The shared
governance process was followed. A
question was asked as to whether a written explanation was required as to why
the recommendation of the Academic Senate was not followed, and Cathy explained
that there is no requirement for District Council to reply. Hiring procedures for administrators are not
one of the items for which the Board must “rely primarily” on the advice of the
Senate. These procedures are in place
currently.
Cathy’s advice
to the Senate was that getting four faculty on the committee may be the best we
can do. There is already an opinion from some people that a committee of
ten may be too large to schedule
meetings easily and making it larger by adding two additional faculty will only
make the problem worse. Anyone appointed
will need to make this hiring process a very high priority. The Senate should look for diversity among
the faculty appointed to the hiring committee – a broad cross-section of
faculty from different parts of the faculty.
Discussion
followed about the changes in the committee from past hirings, and about the
type of diversity represented among the faculty who have submitted their names
for consideration for the committee. The
current composition includes two more administrators than in the past, as well
as one more classified representative. The Senate has asked for two additional
faculty. Among the ten people who have expressed interest in serving on the
committee, there are two division chairs, an ACE representative, several
Senators, representatives of several different divisions. Cathy expressed an opinion that having a
division chair could be good since they have a different relationship with the
President than most faculty; an ACE representative could be good also. Other considerations might be vocational vs.
academic departments, student services vs. instructional, etc.
It was moved
and seconded (Cogswell/Britchko) that the MCAS send four names to the administration
for the hiring committee. There was no
discussion on the motion, and it passed unanimously. The regular order of the
agenda resumed at this point.
VI. C. Committee
Appointments
1. Hiring Committee for the President of Mission
College
- ten faculty expressed interest in
serving on this committee: Betti Cogswell, Jeff Cormier, Ann Cowels, Cathy Cox,
Stephanie Kashima, Ellen McAlister, Jeff Nelson, Char Perlas, Jim Van Tassell,
and Thais Winsome. Char Perlas withdrew
her name from consideration at this time suggesting that Ellen would be a
better representative from Student Services.
Anna Britchko stated an opinion that it was absolutely critical to have
at least one Senator on the committee.
Suggestions were made that in voting, Senators pay attention to
selecting a wide cross-section of faculty.
Betti
Cogswell, Cathy Cox, Ellen McAlister, and Jeff Cormier were selected to serve
on the committee. A question was asked
about the composition of other administrative hiring committees and the
response was that the Senate’s concern was the idea of parity with
administration – if two administrators sit on the committee, then two faculty
should as well.
D.
President’s Report – The
complete written report is attached to these minutes. Cathy drew the attention
of the Senators to certain items. At
last week’s meeting, she was directed to ask the Board to agendize the
“Behavioral Objectives” as an item for discussion at their next meeting. She has done so, and it is on the agenda for
this evening as an information only item.
The Board can give direction to staff if necessary, and if more formal
action is needed the item can be re-agendized for the following meeting as an
information and action item.
Cathy pointed out information about the
forums scheduled by Harriett Robles to discuss facilities issues. A question
was asked about the “facilities committee” mentioned in the President’s Report,
and she clarified that the committee referred to is not the Facilities
and Safety committee, which is a Senate sub-committee, but rather a task force
developed recently specifically to address the discussion about the current
seismic retrofitting issues facing the Main Building. The question at hand is which alternatives
are we not willing to consider? Knowing that will help us focus on what
we wish to do. Cathy also passed out a
sheet Jack Mahrt had prepared with notes from the FCMAT exit interview. A question was asked about who was
interviewed from Mission. As far as
Cathy is aware, interviews were done with the finance people from each college,
with the Academic Senate presidents, and so forth – Harriett, Worku, Bill
Dacanay, etc. She was asked to request a list of the interviewees from Jack
Mahrt, and agreed to do so.
Cathy also
reported on a discussion of the Land Corporation that occurred at the
Administrative Services Council meeting 9/6, including discussion of the
preparation of the Land Corp minutes and agenda. A related concern is the lack of follow-through
and information dissemination following meetings. Cathy pointed out that some of the concerns
about Land Corp operations expressed by the Mission Academic Senate in the past
are now being expressed from other areas as well, and this supports our
points. Another item from this meeting
was a discussion of “educational administrators” and “classified
administrators” and “managers” -
administrator and manager are equivalent terms in our district. However,
“educational administrators” have legally mandated retreat rights to untenured
faculty status which are totally separate from the negotiated retreat rights of
tenured faculty who move into management status and then leave it at
some point. “Classified managers” do not
have retreat rights unless they were previously tenured faculty in our
district.
Finally, an
additional $3.9 million in one-time money is coming into the District this
year. DBAC has asked all constituencies
to begin thinking about how to spend the money, which will be going though each
college’s established budget process for prioritization. Senators should communicate this to their
divisions. Jim Van TasselL asked about
how this relates to the 50% law and payment of retiree benefits. Cathy assured the Senate that there is
awareness of both of these issues at the District level. An item on the 9/21 Board agenda will deal
with the funding of special bonds to pay for retiree benefits (OPEB bonds).
VII. Old
Business
A. Update on
District Resolution – The agenda for tonight’s (9/7) meeting includes an item
(4.1) placed by President Cathy Cox at the request of the Senate: “Discussion
and consideration of response to the Recommended Behavioral Objectives
requested of Board of Trustees, Administration and Senates by the West Valley
Mission Community College District Senate.”
Since this document has now been approved by the WVC AS at their meeting
9/5, it is now an official action of the District Academic Senate. WVC AS also passed a version of the “Draft”
Behavioral Objectives document previously seen by this Senate, with a column
listing updates, and that document will also be given to the Board. Cathy will also be able to refer to the 8/10
MCAS meeting minutes if necessary in the discussion with the Board.
The opinion
was expressed by a Senator that the Board has not owned up to their role in the
problems, and that it was important not to let them slide. Discussion ensued on
the topic of how the Senate will assess their compliance. On some issues such as hiring and retention,
exit interviews might be beneficial. In some areas, there hasn’t been much
movement. In others there are some
District plans that may help, such as the Leadership Institute, which relates
to Objective C5, “Create an ongoing institutional development program.” A suggestion was made that the Senate look at
what is possible in the time available and whether a good-faith effort has been
made. Alternatively, perhaps we should
resist the pressure to be too specific and should ask the Board to tell what
they have done with regard to each objective.
The objectives are already specific. They were presented at the August
17 Board meeting; it is the Board’s turn to respond to us.
It was moved (Juncker/Cogswell) “that the
Mission College Academic Senate request from the Board of Trustees a written, itemized
progress report addressing each Behavioral Objective by September 28,
2006.” Cathy noted that the item on the
Board agenda tonight was not an action item, but that under an information-only
item, the Board could direct staff to carry out orders such as preparing a
report in consultation with the Chancellor for their approval at a future
meeting.
Discussion of the motion followed. The DAS is going to need something solid on
which to judge the progress or lack of progress made by the Board and Administration. Writing a response will at least force the
Board to read each objective carefully. All the issues need to be addressed,
not just negotiations. If they respond
in writing, they will be accountable. A motion was made to extend time on this
subject by ten minutes (M/S/U Cogswell/Juncker)
A senator pointed out that with the
current anticipated turnover in the Board we may be asking a lot of them to
provide coordinated action right now; Cathy pointed out that the Behavioral
Objectives also are addressed to the Administration and the District as well as
the Board. The response could provide an
opportunity for the Board to act in unity. The vote was taken, and the motion
passed unanimously.
B.
Review and Consider Senate Goals for the
Current Year and Strategies for Conducting Effective Meetings – Several issues
have stayed on “future agenda items” for a long time, while other newer issues
are also waiting to be dealt with. Cathy
asked that Senators consider which should be priorities this year. One issue is graduation requirements with
respect to mathematics, which are changing at the State level. Task forces could be formed to deal with some
of the issues and make recommendations that the Senate could then act on, with
two readings if necessary to provide appropriate input. These requirements take effect next
year. English, information competency,
and speech were already changed about three years ago. Suggestions were made about the possible
composition of a task force to look into this issue, but the focus here is
deciding Senate priorities and this appears to be a high priority. (At this
point, quorum was lost but discussion continued for information only.)
Other possible priorities for the coming
year were discussed. Cathy pointed out that she is not looking for specific
agenda items at this point but rather for goals the Senate will accomplish this
year. She also pointed out that the
Senate has responsibility for Program Review as part of the ten plus one, and
subject to actions of the District Academic Senate on 10/3 we need to consider
looking at that as a goal to accomplish.
Goals so far include the Math/Science graduation requirements, amending
the MCAS by-laws and constitution, resolving the China recruitment issues,
dealing in some fashion with facilities problems, moving forward with program
review, and revising the faculty hiring prioritization process to resolve
problems. Senators were asked to go back
to their constituents to get input.
Cathy will also be trying to visit each Division during the coming
months at least one time.
VIII. New
Business
B. Review and Consider Recommendations
Relating to Title V Grant and Institutionalization of Grant Activities – This item will
be re-agendized as quorum was lost before it was reached, but President Cox
advised the Senate that the committee that is required by the Title V grant is
a legal requirement of the grant and is not a Senate committee. The point was raised that the committee is a
college committee and therefore falls under the DAS resolution.
A brief
discussion also occurred about the status of international programs and the
Kuwait initiative relative to the DAS resolution, and the Senate requested that
a discussion about international programs be agendized for a District Academic
Senate meeting.
IX. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:05
p.m. (M/S/U – Juncker/Perlas). These
minutes are respectfully submitted by Cathy Cox, Academic Senate President.
Mission
College Academic Senate
Following the MCAS meeting last week, I talked with the
Chancellor and gave him a report on the gist of the discussion surrounding the
appointment of faculty to the Presidential hiring committee. As you will see, I have re-agendized this
item for discussion and action at this week’s meeting. The Chancellor has provided me with
information concerning the composition of the most recent previous hiring
committee which resulted in the hiring of Frank Chong in 2003.
I also discussed with the Chancellor the matter of
agendizing discussion of the “Behavioral Objectives” for Board discussion and
response, and I have taken steps to get this item on the Board Agenda for
September 7 as an information item. If
the Board wishes to direct Staff to take action or to follow procedures, they
can do so without themselves taking action as a Board. If additional Board action is necessary, the
item can be re-agendized as an action item for their September 21 meeting.
As usual, please remember that these are only my notes
and not official minutes of the meetings.