Approved 10-27-2010
Meeting Minutes for Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - BC 214, 3:00 – 5:00 pm
Members Present: Ignacio Alarcón (President), Barbara Bell, Cindy Bower, Susan Broderick, Stan Bursten, Angel Cardenas, Gary Carroll, Steve DaVega, Esther Frankel, Jack Friedlander, Tom Garey, Atty Garfinkel, David Gilbert, David Morris, Kenley Neufeld, Dean Nevins, Kathy O’Connor, Gail Reynolds, Sally Saenger, Lou Spaventa
Members Excused: Stephanie Durfor, Jan Schultz
Guest(s): Cornelia Alsheimer, Geordie Armstrong, Johan Hammerby (The Channels), Laurie Vasquez
1.0 Call to Order
1.1. Public Comments
1.2. Approval of Agenda – so approved
1.3. Approval of Minutes, September 22, 2010
M/S/C To approve the meeting minutes of September 22, 2010 (Carroll/Frankel)
2.0 Information
2.1. Congratulations to All Involved in Title V Grant ($3m over 5 years) Especially to Jack Friedlander as Leader of Team
Jack Friedlander reported the U.S. Department of Education announced on September 30, that SBCC had been awarded a $3 million federal Title V grant to be paid over five years starting in 2010-11. It is the single largest grant in the history of the college and the first federal Title V grant. The goal of the grant is to increase and accelerate the success, progression, degree completion and transfer preparation of students. Kathy Molloy would be the grant coordinator. The SBCC Express to Success Program will be an accelerated program with specialized curriculum, counseling, and other resources designed to guarantee that enrolled students will complete their associate degree or transfer requirements in no more than three years. The program will also include an accelerated component for students in upper level ESL courses to enable them to transition into and complete their degree and/or transfer requirements in a much shorter time than is possible with the current curriculum. Jack said this has opened up new doors for us to apply for additional Title V grants. The core group who worked on the Title V grant proposal were: Dr. Jack Friedlander (chair); Robert Else; Cheryl Dettrick, grant consultant; Keith McLellan; Kathy Molloy; Pam Guenther; Sheila Wiley; Priscilla Butler; Dr. Ben Partee; Marilynn Spaventa; Dr. Alice Scharper; Dr. Doug Hersh; Jared Hersh; Ignacio Alarcón; Mindy Mass; Carol Diamond; and Carmen Rivero. Other faculty and staff provided input as well. Overall, about 40 faculty, managers and staff contributed to the development of the grant proposal. Kathy Molloy will serve as project director under the oversight of Dr. Andreea Serban and Dr. Jack Friedlander.
Ignacio Alarcón added that it was quite an achievement to get this grant on the first attempt, and so soon after SBCC was declared an Hispanic Serving Institution a little over a year ago. The senators all cheered with congratulations to Jack. Atty Garfinkel, on behalf of the students, also thanked Jack.
2.2. Adjunct Faculty Representative Runoff Election October 6 – October 20
Cornelia Alsheimer-Bartel, Geordie Armstrong)
Ignacio Alarcón introduced the two run-off candidates and announced that the results of the election shall be known by the next senate meeting when the newly elected Adjunct representative will officially join the senate and begin serving the two-year term.
2.3. Special Information Item (Tom Garey)
Tom Garey announced that he would be retiring at the end of the school year. Tom said he planned to continue his efforts and work on behalf of the Drama/Music building project until its completion.
2.4. C-ID (Course Numbering System Project) and Transfer Degree (SB 1440)
(http://www.c-id.net/disciplines.htm)
Discussions regarding Art History, Biology, Chemistry, Criminal Justice, Geology, History,
Kinesiology-PE, Mathematics, Physics, Psychology, Theatre are ongoing. For some of these, an effort to have Transfer Degrees by Fall 2011 is in place.
Ignacio reported that he recently attended a meeting on two ‘fast-tracked’ legislative topics for which discussion is underway: 1) A common ‘supra’ numbering system that is being required for courses (not to replace local numbering systems) and 2) For the Transfer Degree; to create a model 60 unit curriculum that colleges can adopt and CSUs will honor the transfer degree students. Priority would be given at the local CSU, but the legislation only guarantees admission to some CSU’s. The IGETC path will remain in place. The focus is on a major articulation agreement. Ignacio reported the meeting he attended focused on majors where significant work had already been completed; majors that had the best outlook to be implemented by Fall 2011. Jack Friedlander explained that in the legislative language, it is the Community Colleges that have the responsibility and authority to design these Transfer Degrees. Jack asked Ignacio what he had observed at the meeting in terms of progress. Ignacio said he felt the momentum was very good for getting some of the degrees in place by Fall 2011; and that those in attendance were informed the Chancellor’s Office would guarantee fast-track approvals this spring. At the same time there are majors that will need much more work given the diversity of local degree requirements; a good example: the Business Associate or Transfer Degree. Esther Frankel agreed that this had been an ongoing discussion from the time of the old IMPAC discussions.
2.5. Senator Lou Spaventa asked Academic Senate President Ignacio Alarcón if he was asked to put
his name on the Superintendent/President’s email of October 9, or if it was something that he had done voluntarily. Ignacio answered that it was voluntary; that it was in response to the email the Instructors’ Association Executive Board had sent out and that he believed contained partial information that needed to be completed. For this reason, he consulted with the Superintendent/President. Lou Spaventa asked: so, you approached the President; why did you include your title in the email – it implies that you have the consent of the Senate. Ignacio answered that he disagreed, and that in his role as Academic Senate President he had been to all the Board meetings, both regular and study sessions, Board Committee meetings, in addition to the College Planning Council meetings, and that in that capacity he believed the information provided by the Instructors’ Association Board needed to be completed.
3.0 Action
3.1. Academic Senate Priorities/Recommendations for Partial Restoration of Funding 2011-2012
Ignacio reported that although the Senate has had discussions on the topic of funding restoration, the Senate has not yet put together a formal proposal. It would be very helpful to the Senate representatives at CPC to know where the Senate stood when the discussions on restoration of funding are underway. This was especially felt at the last CPC meeting, when the Superintendent/President’s proposal for partial restoration of sabbaticals was brought up. Kenley Neufeld commented that at the last CPC meeting, Superintendent/President Serban proposed $170,000 as partial restoration for Sabbaticals for next year. This amounts to one half of the funding for Sabbatical at its highest level in 2007-2008. Kenley added that in order to have everything in place, this would need to be assigned now, so faculty and departments could adequately plan for Fall 2011. Kenley felt that the CPC faculty representatives did not have a clear enough sense of what the Senate position was on the matter. That is, if Sabbaticals were a priority at this time it would require immediate action. Jack Friedlander explained there is no question about the value of Sabbaticals and the need for supporting them. Jack said that he had discussed this at the Deans Council meeting on Tuesday. The question is about the timing of getting Sabbaticals in place for next year. If this is done, the money comes from the same finite pot of money used to fund other priorities. This makes a recommendation difficult when the restoration of sabbaticals has not formally been articulated. Dean Nevins added that the discomfort expressed by some members at CPC was because this would be outside the budgeting process.
The Senate then began a discussion about what funding to partially restore, such as: Sabbaticals; Readers; Travel and Conference; Hourly support staff. The short term and long term effect that a particular request would have on students. For example, Readers would have a direct short term effect on students, while Sabbaticals, where innovation comes from, would have a greater long term influence over a greater number of students. Sabbaticals are a prime source of new ideas in teaching. New material and new hires come from offering Sabbaticals. Some senators believed a choice needed to be made, while others believed the restoration requests were necessities not luxuries; that choices such as these should not have to be made.
Jack Friedlander explained that the $170,000 that is being talked about for partial restoration of Sabbaticals, is a hypothetical dollar amount because there is no known dollar amount available for restoration. The money would come out of next year’s budget because the funds would not be needed until then. What has been expressed to us is, as the dollars become available they will work their way through (from Business Services, who identify what has been cut and where) to try and restore those funds as they are able to and as they are appropriate. The precedent has been set in terms of restoring funds, through the CPC process and not through the Program Review. In terms of a timeline for making decisions we have until January at the latest to make a decision at CPC because at that point we are starting to build our schedules for the Fall and we would want to know who, if anyone, would be going on a Sabbatical. December would be the latest to decide on the Sabbaticals.
Jack continued, for next year’s budget there are all the new program review requests that have come in; and anything prior to this past year; and those restorations not considered this year. We are not getting any new money. The money is a year in arrears. We still need clarity on how the new budget deferral will work.
The Senators expressed what their principle guide for restoration should be, that is: Which of these would directly affect the majority of our students and does it make sense to look at the immediate impact or the long term impact?
At the highest level, there is at least $300,000 that has not been restored for Readers and OIAs and Sabbaticals prior to the cuts was at $340,000 for 2007-2008. Even before Readers think about getting all the tutors restored in all areas of the campus: The Digital Arts Labs, CIS, Bio/Chem to name a few. Some Departments lost tutors because there were cuts made to their student worker general funds.
Whatever we vote for on restorations the money would come from the ongoing general fund. Find out exactly what is available for funding restoration and the timeline needed to make a decision. The Senate should request that information from Business Services so that informed decisions can be made when making restoration requests.
Ignacio will contact Leslie Griffin to request the information about all cuts made and the details of those cuts made to all departments. Barbara Bell will contact Darin Garard about the most recent list of Sabbatical Leave requests that have been ranked and approved and have Darin contact those individuals to see if their proposal remains the same and would they be able to go on sabbatical if funds were available.
4.0 Hearing/Discussion
4.1. Copyright Procedures
Kenley Neufeld explained that a statement about reasonable accommodations had been added and the reason for the change was to allow for greater interpretation. For our purposes the Copyright laws are guidelines and suggestions to be reviewed on a case by case basis. Copyright laws do not address format (e.g. video, Web, or print). The main difference in the document is the online instruction element with the addition of some new rules. A resource will be placed online to highlight what the rules are and will include frequently asked questions with a committee of people available (an Administrator, David Wong and Kenley) to assist with the guidelines. These individuals should not be considered legal advisors. What brought this policy about was the Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002 or “TEACH Act” to specifically address the needs of the online environment. In order to utilize the provisions of this act you need to have a copyright policy in place and convey to your constituents, educate them, about the policy on a regular basis.
Offering a workshop during flex week where questions would be submitted in advance was discussed.
Copyright guidelines: 1) You can use the fair use clause of the copyright law 2) You can use the TEACH Act, or 3) You can ask
M/S/C To move the Copyright Procedures to Action (Broderick/Neufeld)
M/S/C To approve Copyright Procedures be adopted as written (Broderick/Bursten)
4.2. New Faculty Requests Hearings, No Hearings? (Given That There Will be No New Positions for 2011 – 2012)
Ignacio asked, since there will be no funding available for new positions, should the Senate hear and rank requests for new positions. Jack Friedlander announced the positions that are up for replacement: Automotive, American Ethnic Studies, Library, Theatre Arts, and Dance. It was determined by all that the replacement of all these positions is critical to the operation of their departments.
M/S/C To move New Faculty Request Hearings to Action (Neufeld/Nevins)