Mission College Academic Senate

Ext. 5413

Unapproved  Minutes

Thursday, December 5, 2002 

 

I.       Call to Order/Roll Call

            The meeting was called to order by President Jane Patton at 2:15p.m. 

Senators

   A

   P

Senators

   A

   P

Brennan    (Ext. 5313)  Comm

     

    X

McAlister (Ext. 5087)  Stud.Dev.

    

   X

Charland  (Ext. 5046)  Stud. Dev.

 

    X

Mancini    (Ext. 5855) AF/HM

 

   X

Dooley    (Ext. 5379)  AAS

 

    X

Martin      (Ext. 5356)  Tech.

    X

   

Estrada     (Ext.5164) CommSvc

 

    X

Musat       (Ext. 5331) Math

 

   X

Guich      (Ext. 5270) Social Sci.

 

    X

Oliver       (Ext. 5427)  AAS

 

   X

Johnson   (Ext.5277) CATA

 

    X

Patton    (Ext. 5296) Comm Stud

 

   X

Lavallo    (Ext. 5399)  Math

 

    X

Rivas       (Ext. 5282)  CATA

     X

 

Light       (Ext. 5717) AF/CIT

     X

 

Rosner     (Ext. 5317) ESL

    

   X

Lynne      (Ext. 5248) CommSvc

 

    X

Sippel      (Ext. 5118) Comm

 

   X

 

 

 

VanTassel (Ext. 5334) Tech

 

   X

Other: A.Braun (CRC),C.Topple

 

    X

Other:  B.Grayson (Staff Dev)

      

   X

S. Ghiya, S.Hanna (ASB Rep.)

Guests I.Gard, J.Hacker, L.Harris,

 

    X

    X

Guests: S.Dinger, B.Ensminger, L.Marelick, P.Messerschmidt

 

   X

   X

                   

 II.    Approval of the Minutes

             The minutes for the November 21, 2002, meeting were accepted and approved as submitted (M/S/P – Lynne/Charland).

 

III.    Order of the Agenda

            The Senators agreed, by consensus, that the order of the agenda will be suspended as needed to accommodate guests and the timeline for the forum.

 

 IV.    Oral Communication from the Public

            There was no oral communication from the public at today's meeting.

        

  V.    Information & Announcements 

            1.   President Patton reported that Mission College is considering applying for a Title 3 grant and has hired the same consultant used for the writing of the previous Title 3 grant.  If awarded, the grant will provide $350,000/year for five years.  A focus of the grant will be student outcomes.

            2.   Jane asked the Senators to keep next Thursday available in the event that she needs to call a special meeting of the Senate.

 

VI.    Administrative Business/Actions/Appointments

  A.    Curriculum Committee  - Alex did not submit any report at today’s meeting.

  B.    Staff Recognition -  No resolutions were presented at today’s meeting. 

  C.    Committee Appointments 

1.    Search Committee for the Vice Chancellor – Jane advised that Scott Brunson and Carolyn Fisher volunteered to serve on this committee.  The Senators discussed desirable criteria and several spoke on behalf of each candidate.  The Senators agreed to a written ballot, by consensus, and elected Scott Brunson. 

2.    Appoint Faculty Member to Innovation Fund Committee – Betty Grayson was unanimously appointed to serve on this committee (M/S/U– Dooley/Oliver).

3.    Senate’s Information Competency Task Force  -  Erlinda Estrada and Phil Mancini volunteered and were unanimously appointed by the Senate (M/S/U).

4.    Senate’s Cultural Pluralism Task Force  - Jonathan Brennan, Scott Brunson, Ray Charland, Jane Patton, and Joan Powers volunteered to serve on this task force and were unanimously  appointed by the Senate (M/S/U).

 D.     ASCCC Exemplary Program Award  - Jane advised that no nomination has been forwarded to the ASCCC for this award.

 E.     Oral Reports

         1.  Staff Development  -  Betty reported on the survey results.  The outstanding result indicates that Mission College faculty prefer a three to four week inter-session.  Also, Thursday was overwhelmingly preferred as a flex day prior to a three-day weekend.  It was suggested that individuals notify the ACE negotiators of their preferences.

         2.  District Information Technology Steering Committee  - Senator Light was absent.

         3.  Instructional Technology Committee – Carol Toppel advised that the committee’s work on the Technology Plan is moving forward, and includes the objective to meet the college’s commitment to be the “Technology College” of Silicon Valley.  She also advised that a Network Refreshment Project Committee has been formed and the committee requests that the Academic Senate appoint a faculty member to the committee that is familiar with the uses of computers on campus, online courses, and in labs.  Her committee recommends Marsha Chan, Susanna Pancella, or Ian Walton.  It was agreed that this matter will be addressed at the next Senate meeting.

         4.  Program Review Committee – See Item VIII.A

         5.  Other:  None

 

As agreed, the order of agenda was suspended and moved to Item VIII.A to accommodate Jody Hacker.

 

VIII.  New Business

 

    A.  Report from Program Review Task Force

The Task Force working on this plan is comprised of Betty Ensminger, Ina Gard, Jody Hacker, Lydia Harris, Joni Johnson, Phil Mancini, Dianne McKay, and Carol Toppel. Jody presented the fifth draft developed by the task force for a Program Master Plan and Review to the Senate. This draft has been presented to the Classified Senate and the Executive Administrative Team.  Jody explained that the intent of the name change is to indicate that the focus of the plan and review is geared towards the future rather than the use of a past department plan. The intent of the new process is to make program review a meaningful process, keeping everyone involved in the decision-making groups in touch with each other.

 

Jody presented the process as outlined.  The cycle will continue on a five-year plan, with an annual update for each program.  The steps will include a self-study, the development of a plan for the future with a timeline, and a presentation to a forum made up of representatives from the decision-making groups.  She reviewed the specific steps using a fictitious model to demonstrate how the plan will function.  It was emphasized that the Program Master Plan & Review Committee will be available to assist and guide the departments through the process up to the presentation to the forum. The validated report, once approved by the forum will be presented to the Board of Trustees for publication. The task force welcomes comments and recommendations.  Jody stated that the plan will be brought back to the Senate once finalized.

 

During discussion it was stated that the plan reflects the true implementation of shared governance, bringing everyone together and moving in the appropriate direction for the college. The members  of the task force were highly commended by the Senate for their work.  Jane directed the Senators to share this draft with their constituents, possibly during Flex Day division/department meetings, and Jody suggested that a member of the task force be invited to participate in the discussion.  Copies of the draft are available from the task force, division Senators, and the Academic Senate Office.                    

                                                             

As agreed, the order of the agenda was resumed until the appropriate time for the forum.

 

VII.   Old Business

 

  B.    Final Approval of Learning Communities Program

            Jane reminded the Senators that earlier this year, Peggy Messerschmidt made a presentation on the Learning Communities Program.  The Senate agreed to an initial approval, and the proposal moved through the Curriculum Review Committee, the Vice President of Instruction, and the Division Chair Council (DCC).  All indicated support for the proposal, with the following caveat and recommendation from the Division Chair Council:

 

            •  The DCC supports the institutionalization of the Learning Communities Program if outside funding is available.

            •     The DCC recommends that the program should be evaluated after each year and the program should be located in the Communications Division.

 

            The proposal is now back to the Academic Senate for final approval.  Jane asked for direction.  The following motion was passed unanimously (M/S/U – Brennan/Charland):

           

            “that the Mission College Academic Senate gives its final approval of the Learning Communities Program proposal.”

 

            In discussion that followed, it was stated that this is a positive move and may prove to be a valuable element to incorporate in the proposal for the Title 3 grant.

 

VIII.  New Business (Continued)

 

   B.   Discuss Compositions of Committees for Two Vice President Searches

            Jane presented the following proposals for the composition of the two administrative searches to be conducted.  – the Vice President of Instruction and the Vice President of Student Services. She explained that even though Dan Matarangas has not yet submitted his retirement papers, it has been decided to proceed with this recruitment effort as well.

 

            Vice President of Instruction Composition                                          Issues                         

            One (1) Administrator                                                 1.  Should the 3 faculty be designated from

            One (1) Student Representative                                         certain areas, or

            One (1) Classified Representative                               2.  Should the criteria for selection state that

            Three (3) Faculty Members                                               the committee will include representatives

                                                                                                      from vocational ed/ transfer/other/DC, and                                                                                           3.  If a DC rep is agreed upon, can it be a

                                                                                                     current or past DC?

 

            During discussion it was suggested that the Senate decide areas at the appropriate time, dependent on the faculty that volunteer to serve. It was recommended, however, that at least one faculty member from each area be recruited, particularly in light of the fact that the Senate often does not receive a sufficient number of volunteers from every area.  Jane advised that she would like the Senate to establish criteria for the selection of committee appointments and awards, and hopes to accomplish that task during the first meeting of the Spring semester, followed by a call for volunteers.

                                                                                                                                             

 

 

 

 

         Vice President of Student Services Composition                                Issues                         

            One (1) Administrator                                                 1.  Should the DC slot go to Student Services One (1) Admissions & Records Director                      or

            One (1) Classified Representative                               2.  Should criteria for selection just indicate

            Three (3) Faculty – One being a DC                                  there will be a DC and a Counselor?

 

            Discussion ensued, and the Senators agreed, by consensus, that a student representative be included in the composition of the committee.  Senator Charland opined that given the daily contact between the administrator and the division, it seems appropriate that a Student Services DC, a counselor, or a member from one of the Student Services Departments serve on the committee.  Another opinion stated was that in order to allow flexibility in the selection process, specific members should not be designated.  Jane will report the views of the Academic Senate to GAP and agendize this matter for January.                                                                                        

 

At this time, the order of agenda was moved to Item VIII.D by consensus.

 

  D.    Discuss Request for Additional Reassigned Time for Academic Senate President

The following resolution was presented (M/S – Brennan/Charland):

 

“Whereas, The Academic Senate President plays a critical role in the shared governance process at Mission College, and

 

Whereas, The Mission College Academic Senate President attends numerous committee/board meetings as part of his/her shared governance responsibilities, including GAP, DBAC, DBAC, District Council, IAT, MAT, Equivalency, FSA, Board meetings, as well as CRC and DCC and others as the need arises (which it often does), and

 

Whereas, The Mission College Academic Senate President, as part of his/her responsibilities serves as a representative, ambassador, mediator, adviser, dispenser of wisdom, and defender of faculty shared governance rights, resulting in additional hours of responsibility outside of formal meetings, and

 

Whereas, The Mission College Academic Senate President also undertakes research projects, establishes agendas, attend state-wide functions, and assists the Senate in prioritizing and accomplishing its many responsibilities and tasks, and

 

Whereas, The Mission College Academic Senate President works far in excess of the allocated re-assigned time assigned to the position, and

 

Whereas, The woeful shortfall in re-assigned time allocated to such a demanding position places an undue burden on the dedicated faculty member willing to undertake this important position, discourages existing presidents from serving additional terms (providing stability and experience to the Academic Senate), undermines the completion of critical research needed to resolve campus issues and support Mission College’s institutional needs, and discourages potential qualified candidates from serving as Mission College Academic Senate President, and 

 

Whereas,  The Mission College Academic Senate Vice President could play a vital role in attending several committee meetings as a Senate representative, 

 

Therefore, Be It Resolved,  That the Mission College Academic Senate request and urge that the District allocate an additional .40 FTE to the Academic Senate, to be split equally between the Vice President and Vice President, in recognition of an appropriate and fair compensation for their time.”   

 

A brief discussion followed, and several senators indicated their support for the concept. It was stated, however, that Senators teach and participate in Senate activities without any compensation.  It was also stated that the re-assigned time might be more appropriate for the president to ensure participation in all pertinent activities rather than splitting it between the president and vice president.

It was noted that the Senate currently receives .8 FTE/semester:  .5 for the Senate President, .1 for the co-Chair of the Equivalency Committee, and .2 for the Chair of the Curriculum Review Committee.   The ACE President is allotted 1.0 re-assigned time, and the responsibilities of the Academic Senate are commensurate with the ACE position.  Jonathan asked for a vote on his resolution today, and offered to accept any friendly amendments.   Since the allotted time for the forum (Item VII.A) had arrived, a motion to table the resolution was passed (M/S/P – VanTassel/Estrada).  In accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order, the resolution must be brought back to the table at the next regular meeting or it dies.                                       

 

As agreed, the order of agenda was moved to Item VII.A as it was now the allotted time for the forum.

 

VII.   Old Business (Continued)

           

   A.   Forum on English 1A/Oral Communication Graduation Requirements

Jane explained that the Accreditation Team’s report on Mission College included the recommendation that the college needs to update its graduation requirements, with particular attention to English skills, oral competency, and the cultural pluralism requirements.  Discussion on this matter began at the Senate last Spring, and today’s discussion is designed to obtain as much input as possible in order to make a decision.  It was agreed that pro and con arguments on the English 1A requirement would be presented first.  The following points were made:

 

Pro Arguments for English 1A Requirement

            •     The English Department supports the establishment of English 1A as a requirement for an AA and AS degree, as is ECCTYC (English California Council for Two Year Colleges). A state survey presented at the plenary session of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) indicated that a large proportion of California colleges have English 1A as a degree requirement for AA and over 50% require the course for an AS degree.

            •     ECCTYC is working with the ASCCC to institutionalize the requirement across the board.

            •     West Valley College has English 1A as a degree requirement.

            •     Mission College offers a two-year degree but allows a non-transfer level (pre-college level) course as applicable toward the degree.

            •     English 1A is appropriate for an AA degree for a student transferring to a four-year institution.

            •     High school students are required to write English papers.  An AA student should be required to do the same, and an AS student may not need to fulfill that requirement.

            •     Skills learned in English 1A are life skills under every circumstance – using the Internet, for information, for life jobs, thinking skills, etc.  Such a requirement is in the student’s best interest.

            •     Although the college could graduate more students if we eliminate units, to award a degree without ensuring that the students have the appropriate writing skills is a disservice to the students and the institution.  Lowering the standards is not the answer.

           

            Con Arguments for English 1A Requirement

            •     The Student Services Department received the results of a survey sent out to 106 community colleges.  Of the 106 colleges, 103 responses were received, and 86 out of 103 colleges indicated that they required a course one level lower that English 1A as a graduation requirement.   

            •     English 1A as a requirement will increase the number of general education units required for graduation and will only serve as an additional level.  Some students already take Math and Reading as a requirement.

            •     If English 1A is required, is English 108A deleted?

            •¨   ESL students will be required to take all five strands of ESL this year.  Let’s wait to see how they perform before another requirement is added.

            •     Vocational and Career students will be penalized if English 1A is required.

            •     The CA Department currently offers classes on how to write resumes and how to interview.  The students do not take the courses.  These skills are learned with practice.  An English 1A requirement for certificate programs will destroy those departments.

            •     Many students working towards an AA degree do not necessarily have the academic goals that will require the skills learned in English 1A. English 108A is sufficient for certain degrees in certain areas.

            •     Add 108A for certificate programs, currently not a requirement.

            •     The graduation rate for Mission College is currently at 3-4% - the lowest rate of California community colleges.  The Business Division lowered the number of units required, which has resulted in a higher graduation rate.  The state will be holding colleges to performance measures and graduation is one of those measures.

 

            The discussion moved to the subject of an Oral Communication  requirement:

 

            Pro Arguments for Oral Communication  Requirement

            •     Mission College students need oral competency for success in careers and universities.

            •     Industry has advised that the college sends them employees that cannot speak effectively.

            •     Most community colleges have the requirement.

            •     The CSU system requires oral communication for transfer students.

            •     It is the responsibility of faculty as educators to ensure that Mission College students are prepared to go out in the world.  Students have not been hired by Intel because they did not have oral competency.  We need to give our students what they need.

            •     The ESL Department is overwhelmingly in support of Oral Communication as a requirement for an AA and AS degree.  This would result in better preparation for the student, would increase student success and increase the graduation rate.

            •     Courses taught in Communication Studies reinforce English courses.  The same skills are taught from a different perspective and include critical thinking, organizational skills – the courses reinforce each other, providing students with a greater opportunity.

            •     If students do not have communication skills, they will not be able to communicate effectively.  Instructors are supposed to give written assignments to support English and Oral Communication.  Many disciplines no longer give writing assignments

            •     The commitment of Mission College is to educate students in accordance with its mission statement.  We must prepare all students to leave the college a more effective communicator.

            •     The student representative stated that the Speech class she took taught her life skills, organizational skills, how to communicate feelings and prepare and present a persuasive argument.  This was the best class she ever took, and it provided her with an interpersonal education.

            •     Most instructors do not know how to teach oral communication, and experts in the field are the best resource.  Students need these skills more than ever.

 

            Con Arguments for Oral Communications Requirement

            •     Additional FTE will be required to teach required Speech courses. Where will the FTE come from?

            •     It is reasonable to expect Public Speaking for an AA degree certificate program. While communication is important for an AS degree and certificate programs, the requirement does not necessarily have to be a Speech class. Certificate programs could require that oral communication be incorporated into the curriculum.

            •     In regard to Mission College students not being hired by industry, it was stated that students from DeVry College are hired by Intel instead, and those students are not required to have Oral Communications or English 1A to graduate.

            •     Last time the economy was down, there was an increase in tuition, which resulted in a 10% loss of students. When the economy is down, it is not wise to add additional roadblocks.

            •     Speech is covered in terms of interview especially in certificate programs.  It behooves us to offer a course without making it a graduation requirement.

            •     It would be better to ensure that oral communication is embedded across the curriculum.

 

            Jane thanked everyone for their input and stated it is clear that the Academic Senate needs to weigh all the issues.  Another opportunity to express views on this matter will be afforded at the Flex Day Forum on Graduation Requirements, to be held on January 9, 2003, around 1:30 – 2:00 p.m.

 

The order of the agenda was moved to Item VIII.C

 

VIII.  New Business (continued)

 

    C.  Discuss Early Tenure Clause in ACE Contract

Jane explained that ACE has asked the Senate to consider issues under Article 26 for negotiation purposes.  This article deals with tenure and includes language that allows for early tenure under certain conditions, i.e., a faculty member tenured by another institution.  Another question involves the composition of tenure review teams.  Should emeritus faculty be allowed to serve on a tenure review team?  An emeritus faculty member may have expertise in a specific discipline.  Should this be included in the contract?  Jane directed the Senators to discuss these questions with their constituents and be prepared to report back and discuss at the next Senate meeting.

 

The remaining business items were postponed due to the hour.

                                                                                             

  X.   Correspondence, Publications, & Announcements

         Correspondence

1.    Letter dated November 22, 2002, from the AACC re: David R. Pierce Faculty Technology Award.

2.    Letter dated November 21, 2002, from WASC with a change of address.

3.    E-mail memo dated December 4, 2002, from Jim Burrell re: hours by arrangement for 16-week calendar.

4.    E-mail memo dated December 4, 2002,  from Clo Hampton re: new policy re: absences and substitution.

5.    E-mail memo dated December 4, 2002, from Clo Hampton re: Fall Flex/12 month paychecks.

6.    E-mail memo from Clo Hampton dated December 3, 2002, re: Update on Negotiations on Medical Benefits.

7.    E-mail memo dated December 4, 2002, from Christina Booth in response to questions posed by ACE representatives at the December 4th District Council meeting.

8.    E-mail memo dated December 3, 2002, from Christina Booth with the job descriptions for the new management positions at IS. 

         Publication/Minutes

            1.   November issue of Digital Media Arts & Technology News.

2.    Article from Celebrating the way CALIFORNIA LEARNS  on the Learning Communities Team at Mission College.

3.    The minutes for the November 20, 2002, meeting of DBAC.

4.    The agenda for the Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees scheduled for December 3, 2002.

5.    The December 3, 2002, issue of FA NEWS from the Foothill-DeAnza Faculty Association.

6.    The most recent draft of the 2003/2004 Academic calendar, not yet approved by the Board.

7.    A copy of the 2002/03 Mission College Distance Learning Report, to be presented to the Board on December 12, 2002. 

8.    The agenda and information for the December 9, 2002, meeting of the Curriculum Committee.

9.    Results of the Mission College Staff Development Survey on Inter-session from Betty Grayson dated December 5, 2002.

10. A briefing with relevant information concerning the Integration of Instructional Technology in the California Community Colleges from Martha Kanter, President of DeAnza College and Co-Chair of the CCC Telecommunications & Technology Advisory Committee.

         Announcements/Conferences

 

XI.    Future Agenda Items

            No new items were introduced at today's meeting.

 

XII.   Adjournment

            The meeting was adjourned at 4:02 p.m. (M/S/U – Guich/Charland). These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.