Approved 10-26-2011
Academic Senate Meeting Minutes for Wednesday, October 12, 2011
West Campus, BC 214, 3:00 – 5:00 pm
Members Present: Ignacio Alarcón, Cornelia Alsheimer, Cindy Bower, Stan Bursten,
Gary Carroll, Steve DaVega, Jeffrey Englert, Esther Frankel, David Gilbert, Debbie Mackie, David Morris, Kenley Neufeld, Dean Nevins (President), Kathy O’Connor, Melanie Eckford-Prosser, Sally Saenger, Keith McLellan for Marilynn Spaventa (EVP), Patricia Stark, Ann Wilkinson
Member(s) Absent: Angel Cardenas, Gordon Coburn, Jeff Meyer, Marilynn Spaventa
Guest(s): Eric Bullock, Lee Chang, Sharareh Masooman, Keith McLellan, Bronwen Moore, Mike Young
1.0 Call to Order
1.1 Public Comments – no request received
1.2 Approval of Agenda – so approved with added item 3.7
1.3 Approval of Minutes 09-14-11
M/S/C To approve the 9-14-11 meeting minutes w/changes (Neufeld/Gilbert) 2 abstentions
2.0 Unfinished Business
2.1 Impact of 21 TLU cap enforcement. (Attachments B, C, & D)
Senate President Nevins explained he was looking for direction from the Senate about whether this item should be sent to the Academic Policies committee and if so, are there any instructions the Senate would like send to AP? President Nevins reported the Senate approved a recommendation May 2011 titled “Enforcement of the 21 TLU Cap” as stated and this precipitated the request by our guest speakers today to present to the Academic Senate the impact this enforcement would have on their departments
Professor Mike Young, chair of the Physics and Engineering department reported that the stringent enforcement of the 21 TLU cap would have some significant problems. Professor Young strongly disagreed with the assumption this would show support for our adjuncts. Professor Young said he has talked with his dean, who agreed his points were valid, as well as the Executive Vice-President, full time faculty, and adjuncts who also agreed that this is not the best way to support them. He also spoke with the Chemistry, Computer Science, Earth Science, Biology and Mathematics departments and their responses were the all the same. Professor Young reported this is widespread and the enforcement of the 21 TLU cap does not work which is why he has brought this back to the Academic Senate. Professor Young added that he and the other department chairs that are here today want this to be real and to be able to explain their position and reasoning as to why this is not in the best interest of their adjuncts and departments.
Whether this would result in a new policy; or change a policy; or go back to implement it the way it was before: we are seeking to open a new discussion. The motion made by the Senate last spring is opposite of what the five groups of people who represent my department think is best.
Professor Eric Bullock, Chemistry department chair wanted to echo a lot of what Professor Young said is also true for the Chemistry department. Professor Bullock added that they have had a hard time getting qualified adjuncts. Enforcement of the 21TLU cap would drastically change our program. We would have to hire very hard to find adjuncts. Eric is worried about brain drain because we may be limiting talented people to teach only 21 TLUs and they may go elsewhere if they can teach more.
Associate Professor Bronwen Moore, Mathematics department chair reported there were five people in her department who are teaching over the overload or wanted to and told that they could not because of the enforced limit. Associate Professor Moore added these are all excellent teachers and our school and students would not suffer if they were allowed to teach over the 21 TLU overload limit. These people have for years been teaching over the 21 TLUs cap. Associate Professor Moore reiterated what Professors Young and Bullock already stated: that many part timers are teaching full time elsewhere.
Professor Bullock added in summary this is all motivated by the fact we do not want to reduce the quality of our programs.
Response from the Senate:
The policy has been in place for at least 15 years and the policy has not been changed. Exceptions can be approved by the dean, the department chair and the faculty member and the EVP. What would a realistic cap be? Department’s were happy with the situation and it was the action by the Senate to enforce the policy that is the cause of this discussion. The risk of having something looked at is that it may not end up being the way the presenters want it to be.
President Nevins explained what he meant by general guidelines the Senate might have for AP. 1) We would like to investigate a different cap; what kind of numbers are we thinking about; 2) Stay with the true status of faculty teaching their full load and teaching overloads and no cap at all; 3) Do we want to not want count service as it is being counted right now. There are a lot of factors that contribute to this policy. We need to be very careful that there is not the perception out there and in particular by the administration that 15 TLUs does not count as a full-time job.
Note: Agenda attachment D item AP1914F Overload payment - President Nevins will look into the change in payment and report back.
M/S/C To send the policy AP1914 to the Academic Policies committee with instructions to look at section C of AP1914 (Neufeld/Alarcón) 1 abstention
3.0 New Business
3.1 Exemplary Program Award
Senator Ann Wilkinson announced the FEC has recommended SBCC’s Transfer Academy to be the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges Exemplary Program Award nominee.
M/S/C To move agenda item 3.1 to Action (O’Connor/Frankel)
M/S/C To approve the FEC recommendation that the Transfer Academy be the nominee for the ASCCC Exemplary Program Award (Carroll/Bower)
3.2 Proposed Recommendation List (Attachment E)
President Nevins reported this is a bottom up approach and each department will be required to come up with how they are going to cut their budget. Department’s will need to do a range of two things 1) the low order is to cut 8% of their department budget across three years and 2) the same exercise using the high end of 12% that departments will need to cut across three years. Spread these cuts over the three years do not wait until the last year to propose your cuts and can include cuts to some summer classes (summer cuts would save fall). These are theoretical cuts and we are trying to frame the question to the administration by taking a look at our own budget which is strictly TLUs. By cuts it does not mean getting rid of your classes it means you may want to offer the class once a year rather than every semester. There are different strategies that can be used.
The Guidelines for Reallocations and Reductions (created from the workgroup & forum) to be used as the rough draft in weighted order (found on page 2 of agenda attachment E) with the following modifications: Under Set #1 exchange 3 with the Guidelines 3 and for Set #3 exchange 4 with Guidelines 4. Add #5 Full time faculty should not be laid off.
The Guidelines for Reallocations and Reductions items to remain the same are number 1 (change “like” to “such as”) and 2.
There was discussion about whether to include item 4 in Set #2 and Vice-President Neufeld noted that it does not need to be included because it is already covered in other areas of the document and it is the first item of our institutions’ Budget Principles passed by the Board of Trustees.
3.3 AP 4491 Emeritus Faculty Status
M/S/C to approve AP 4491 Emeritus Faculty Status (Carroll/Alarcón)
3.4 BP 4400/AP 4400 Employment of Faculty (Attachment G, H, & I)
President Nevins wanted Senators to take the recommended changes to their Divisions in preparation for a vote at the [next] Senate meeting.
3.5 Draft Recommendations of the Student Success Task Force (
President Nevins announced that Senators should go to the link provided to review the draft recommendation in preparation for discussion at the [next] Senate meeting and in particular the recommendations for the Title V changes. President Nevins added a discussion would give him a sense of how they feel about the recommendations being made by the Task Force before he attends the state Fall Plenary. The Senate may even consider drafting a written response.
3.6 Senate position on reducing full time faculty.
Senator Kathy O’Connor, CPC liaison, reported that the last two CPC meetings have been scary. We need to make over $4million in cuts over the next two/three years and how do we do that when 90% of our budget is fixed and 10% is not fixed. The reason it is so dire is the $4million would be in addition to the already agreed upon budget cuts. Senator O’Connor added that cuts by attrition would need to play a significant part. President Nevins added that right now there are about 10-18 positions that would not be filled over the next two years. We have had a 10-15% workload reduction. There are 17 retirements just this year. We are going to be reducing expenses by not replacing 10 positions over the next two years. However, if we want to help with cuts we should consider not replacing more.
President Nevins proposed to give departments a bump by adding a couple of virtual senators to the ranking process to be used at a future time if a department voluntarily does not come forward with a Full-Time Faculty replacement request.
3.7 Academic Calendar 2012-2013 – Added Agenda Item
Note: Summer start for 2012 will be June 18. Senators should take this information to your Divisions and be prepared to vote at the [October 26] Senate meeting. President Nevins said he would also report back whether the Senate should/should not also review the Continuing Education calendar.
4.0 Reports
None given.
5.0 Adjourn
Key:
M/S/C - Moved/Seconded/Carried - Refers to a motion being moved by a Senator, seconded by another, and carried (passed) by the Senate as a whole.
Minutes October 12, 2011 Academic Senate Meeting Page 1 of 3