I. Call to Order/Roll Call

The meeting was called to order by President Don Cordero at 1:40 p.m. Senators present: Lois Carroll (LRS/LATC/DSPS), Marsha Chan (Communications), Betty Christopher (Commercial Services), Helene Flolo (AAS), Peggy Messerschmidt (Communications), Tab Morales (Student Services), Diane Pette (Student Services), Helayna Thickpenny (CATA), Karl Ting (Math), and Kam Verma (DCE). Also present was Lin Marelick (DCC Rep), and Carol Toppel (Chair, Curriculum Committee). Guests present: Ed Kleppinger (MC Budget Committee) and Michael Rao (President).

II. Approval of the Minutes

The minutes for the August 31, 1995, meeting were accepted and approved with the following correction to the first sentence under Item B on Page 3. "The Senates' responsibilities . . ." (M/S/P - Morales/Chan).

The minutes for the September 7, 1995, meeting were accepted and approved as submitted (M/S/P - Chan/Morales).

III. Order of the Agenda - No changes were made to the Order of the Agenda.

IV. Oral Communication from the Public - There was no communication from the public.

V. Information & Announcements

1. Don attended the FACCC/ASCCC Conference, Faculty Vision for CCCs. The conference was well attended and very helpful. Don distributed a copy of the vision statement prepared at the conference, to be presented at the Fall Session of the Academic Senate for CCC.

VI. Administrative Business/Actions/Appointments

A. Curriculum - * The Curriculum Committee would like to request that a student representative be appointed to the Curriculum Committee. The Senators agreed that Carol should contact the ASB directly and the Senate will confirm the appointment when a student has been selected.

* The committee is currently working on the guidelines for prerequisites, corequisites, and advisories. She recommended that all faculty begin to consider the courses identified as "recommended eligibility" as "advisory" courses. A prerequisite is a course that is required prior to another and a corequisite is a course taken concurrently with another. Division representatives on the Curriculum Committee will keep their divisions informed and up to date on this issue.

B. Matriculation - No matriculation business was discussed today.

C. Committee Appointments - Don reported that the appointment of faculty to the Balance of College Curriculum, Strategic Planning Committee, and the Instructional Program Review Committee will be delayed until certain issues have been clarified. He stated that the Senate needs to do something about the Technology Committee as well. It was noted that the Computer Committee was a Senate committee. The name has since been changed to the Technology Committee and it should have come back to the Senate. This type of thing has happened with other committees and the Senate needs to resolve this matter.

VII. Old Business

A. Update Report on MC Budget Committee

Last year the MCAS proposed the formation of a college budget committee and called for volunteers to participate in the development of the Mission College Budget Committee. The committee's charge was to consider the purpose of this committee and provide the core for the first Budget Committee. Moira Davis, Mina Jahan, Ed Kleppinger, and Marjorie Knowles were selected by the Senate to serve on this committee. The Classified Senate appointed four classified staff members. Lin explained that the original intent was to provide an avenue for the faculty to participate in the decision-making process for allocating the college's budget.

Ed reported that the committee met over the summer with various key people in order to glean as much information as possible. In July, they were introduced to Alan Hiromura by Michael. Alan was designated Chair and it was agreed that he would call the next committee meeting when he was ready. A copy of the committee's proposed charge was distributed to each Senator.

Discussion ensued on the charge, the intent, and the make-up of the committee. Dr. Rao stated that he would like to see a system developed and implemented that will allocate funds in some equitable fashion.  At this time, there is no effective equitable system within the college that can be implemented when budget crises arise. Don questioned whether or not this committee is a committee of the Academic Senate. The membership, which includes classified staff, makes this a committee that is not required to report to the Academic Senate. Lin explained that the Senate initiated and sanctioned the committee and the intent was to provide an opportunity for faculty input on the budget, not necessarily to report back to the Senate. Don recommended that if the committee is not a Senate committee, the committee should be disbanded and reorganized making it clear to whom the committee is responsible. If it is a Senate committee, it reports to the Senate. According to AB 1725, the process for institutional planning and budget development falls under the Senate's purview. Under the old structure and past administrations, administration had the perception that they controlled the budget, rather than share decision-making. Now we are at a point where the President and the administrators view themselves as collaborators with the faculty in developing policy and system. We are currently inventing the systems. Although there is a need to share power and decision-making with all the elements of the college, the primacy of the Senate relates to educational programs. If the Senate is going to take that responsibility in governance, then the budget has to be a Senate responsibility.

In his view, the committee went in a direction that may not be in the faculty's best interest because of the allocation philosophy that emerged out of the charge. Is this committee going to have the responsibility to allocate college funds? It was noted that the committee was intended to be an advisory committee to the administration on budget issues and to participate in the allocation of funds at the college level. The administration is ultimately in charge of the budget. Faculty has a seat on the District Budget Advisory Committee and this allows for faculty input at the district level.

Other options were discussed and considered, such as including input from the division chairs on the committee and the Balance of College Curriculum Task Force. Don explained his philosophy and his views relating to this matter. Ed requested that we allow the committee to function and fulfill its purpose for at least this semester. Mike explained that he wants a system in place that incorporates the views of the entire college, one which everyone views as fair, and one that supports the primary areas of Mission College's focus. Dr. Hiromura will implement the system. Don reported that Dr. Hiromura has indicated that if the committee is not going to be a decision-making body, he would prefer to gather his own data, develop the system himself, then present the plan for approval.

Don asked the Senators for direction, and there was consensus that the committee should stand as it is and serve to fulfill its original charge, which is to discuss the purpose of the committee and provide the core for the first Mission College Budget Committee. It was suggested that the Senate review and possibly revise the charge the committee has prepared for consideration. Dr. Rao asked Don Cordero to address the issue of the committee at the College Governance Council meeting and discuss how the committee can be of most use to the college.

B. Consider Approval of DC Job Description

Lin took the Senate's concerns regarding the job description to the Division Chair Council (DCC), and the DCC again voted unanimously to approve the West Valley College version of the job description. The DCs agreed to change the name of the description to the West Valley-Mission CC District Job Description for Division Chairs. She will bring it back to the Senate for its approval when ready.

C. Consider College Governance Membership & Function

Last week the Senators considered the membership and function of the College Governance Council (CGC) as proposed in a draft of a shared governance model plan. The Senators agreed to recommend that two full-time faculty and one associate faculty member be added to the committee. Don reported that the recommendation was rejected and he encouraged the Senate to approve the proposed structure and continue to lobby for the additional faculty members.

The structure of the Student Services Council was discussed, and although there are a number of faculty representatives on the committee, the representative to the CGC from this committee may not necessarily be a faculty person. A motion to approve the college-wide governance committee structure as presented in the draft failed (M/S/F - Morales/Chan). Lois noted that the student services area is nicely structured. Instructional services would like very much to be recognized as a component of the college and would welcome a parallel structure. A motion (M/S/P - Chan/Morales) to add two full-time faculty and one associate faculty member, to be elected at-large, to the membership of the College Governance Council passed. Don will advise the CGC of the Senate's recommendation.

D. Update on Academic Senate Retreat

The September 21, 1995, meeting of the Mission College Academic Senate will be held in MT 14B from 1:30 - 3:30 p.m., with a single agenda item. Don will provide the Senators with a list of the Academic Senate's goals for 1994/95. He asked the Senators to go back to their constituents to determine what goals the Academic Senate should pursue this year, to be discussed at the retreat scheduled for September 21. The Senators will meet for a no host lunch in Hospitality Management at 12:30 p.m. with anyone who cares to join them. Everyone is invited to attend the Senate's retreat.

E. Consider Approval of Student Equity Plan

Don and Lin Marelick have been working on the plan at a furious pace in order to meet the state's deadline of September 29, 1995. It is anticipated that the plan will be submitted to the Senate by next Wednesday. Lin explained that she and Don are attempting to fill the gaps noted by the state when the plan was rejected. There is some concern as to what the full intent and meaning of the goals and how they will impact the college. Lin cautioned that at the last state Senate session, some faculty were attempting to pass a resolution that will empower the Chancellor's Office to withhold funds until the equity goals are set.

F. Discuss Senate's Constitutional Role in Appointing Faculty to Committees

The Academic Senate's Executive Committee will deal with this matter.

VIII. New Business

At this time Dr. Rao asked to address the Senate in general, combining all the items under New Business in his discussion.

In his view the structure is working well so far. He thanked the Division Chairs and the administrators for their support and their hard work. Since everyone is currently focused on specific areas, he now has the opportunity and time to be off campus more often, promoting the college and its programs. He intends to continue his open door policy, and his interest in feedback from everyone remains constant.

He feels that we need to consider the college's future direction, and the Academic Senate plays a significant role in deciding where the college is headed. At a recent Brown Bag Forum, he and faculty present had an extremely valuable exchange on the way the college has directed itself over the last ten years; growth was a primary motivation. He suggested the Senate consider that MC may not need to grow to a student population of 50,000 or even 20,000 to be successful. It may be reasonable to say that our student population should remain at 10,000. With a guarantee of a fairly solid budget, we could decide, in very specific areas or niches, what the institution should become.

The Senate has the primary responsibility for the core curriculum and what the college offers. He is looking forward to input from a key Senate committee, the Balance of College Curriculum Task Force. He challenged the Academic Senate to continue to do a good job of determining the college's academic direction and to follow through on the important responsibility of establishing Missionís core curriculum. The Senate must seek input from the faculty, sift through it, and work with the entire college to decide the college's direction. For example, we must determine if we can only run classes with a given number of students, or if we can consider the overall curriculum and run classes with a lesser number of students.

In the past, we have been forced to cut FTE based only on low enrollment. If we design a sound academic plan, we should be able to avoid making those types of adjustments. Such a plan will help avoid such actions as taken last year during our financial crisis. Decisions about the direction of the college and its programs must be made, and this is the Academic Senate's responsibility. We have become a feeder institution; students start here, and then we feed them to DeAnza, West Valley, and others. He credited the vocational education areas for making some decisions about the future of their programs at the college; many other areas have yet to consider the future. If we focus on the quality of curriculum rather than numbers to determine what is going to exist, what is going to grow, etc., we will still grow because people will come for the quality. We have not done that in the past, and that was in part due to the lack of leadership.

Dr. Rao spoke with passion and urged the Senate to take control of the quality of education that is offered at Mission College. He noted that there are some negatives to taking control. To do so is not only to stop the way things were done before, but influence the way we do things now and in the future. He wants to ensure that each student will receive service, that education is our primary purpose, and that we fulfill the 1973 Mission College promise and plan. Every student deserves the same level of minimum high level quality customer service in all circumstances, and nothing else is acceptable. And faculty must lead to the extent that this is insisted upon at the college. Now is a good time for us to collect ourselves and determine our direction. It will take energy and some convincing of our colleagues. And if we don't do it, the state will do it for us. Once again, he challenged the Senate to progress toward a balanced curriculum and determine what it is that Mission College really does.

A. Consider Graduation Times and Dates for 1996

There is a consensus of support from a majority of people for a Friday evening graduation when the Board is available. This will allow our students and their families to attend their graduation ceremony.

B. Consider Priority of Student Center Construction &

D. Consider Support of State Chancellor's Proposal for 50/50 Funding of New Facilities for Community Colleges

Michael advised that the state's current list of capital outlay funded items is extremely long and it is unlikely that the state will ever get through it. He has suggested that a second list be funded for projects in which the state and the colleges match funds and share the costs 50/50. This proposal is being processed through the state Academic Senate, the CEO's, the CSO's, etc. He requested that the Academic Senate forward a brief letter to the state Academic Senate President indicating vigorous support for this proposal. The negative is that there are some districts without other sources of funding, such as available to Mission College, and some may say that wealthy districts are being rewarded.

With regard to the Student Center, even if we get on the new list mentioned above, Michael advised that the state almost never funds student centers; classrooms and labs have first priority, libraries come second, and offices are third. At some point in time, he expects that the Foundation will ask for direction on whether or not a bond should be sold to use some Foundation lease funds to pay the bond off for a student center - approximately $500,000 a year for 20 years. If this college wants a Student Center, and we feel that it will enhance and promote the environment, then we need to consider this option. Some have expressed concern about funding the Science and Tech complex and the Library first, but Michael feels that we have a better chance of a 50/50 split with the state on those buildings than we do in obtaining the Student Center. The Long Range Planning Committee prioritized the Student Center first, the Library second, and Science & Tech third. Don explained that part of that prioritization came about as a result of the formulas that were mandated by the state. Michael suggested that the Senators explain the facts to their constituents and determine if there is support for asking the Foundation to give priority to the Student Center.

The remaining items were postponed to the September 28, 1995, Senate meeting.

X. Correspondence, Publications, & Announcements

Announcements/Conferences

1. The Fall 1995 Conference of the California Community College Association for Occupational Education, "Mobilizing for the Future," will be held in San Diego, from October 26-28, 1995.

2. The Seventh Annual West Valley College Pow-Wow will be held on Saturday, October 7, 1995, from Noon to Midnight.

3. The Mission-West Valley Foundation has changed its name to the "Mission-West Valley Land Corporation" to reflect its activities accurately and to avoid confusion with fund-raising foundations. The next meeting is set for September 21 at 4:30 p.m., in Hospitality Management at Mission College.

4. The Regional Health Occupations Resource Center and the W.B. Saunders Co. will present

"Critical Thinking: A Practical Approach" on October 20, 1995, at WVC Baltic Room from 10:00 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. The fee is $30.00 and lunch is included.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:42 p.m. (M/S/P - Ting/Christopher).

These minutes respectfully submitted by Grace Gonzalez, Academic Senate Secretary.