Academic Senate

M I N U T E S

October 8, 2003

3:00 p.m. – BC 214

 

Members Present: Barbara Bell, Susan Broderick, Gary Carroll, Jim Chesher, Esther Frankel, Jack Friedlander, Michelle Fulton, Tom Garey, Peter Haslund (Chair), Tom Mahoney, Kathy O’Connor, Peter Rojas, Lana Rose, Jan Schultz, Sheri Shields, Bob Stockero, Sonia Zuniga-Lomeli.

 

Members Absent: Kim Monda

 

Guests: Kevin Hughes, Mary Lawson, Mangai Pitchai, The Channels

 

 

1.0    CALL TO ORDER

 

1.1        Approval of Minutes of meeting from September 24, 2003.   

                    

         Corrections:

pg #3  add “exceeding 21 TLUs” after “overload”, replace “take part” change to

                  “exceeding this limit”.

         pg  #3  add “/C” to M/S.

         pg  #5  Item 5.0 typo “soul” should be “sole”.

         pg  #5  Friendly amendment strike “M/S” and “unanimous” .

 

M/S/C To approve the September 24, 2003 Senate meeting minutes with corrections (Carroll/Zuniga)

        

1.2    Agenda approved by unanimous consent.

 

 

2.0    INFORMATION  (Announcements, Communications)

                 

2.1    Report from Academic Policies & need to consider developing guidelines to match expectations about what constitutes Committee and College service.

         AP will look at “What is meant by committee service” at a future meeting. 

        

Concerns:  Some committees meet bi-weekly while others meet bi-annually

Committees on sign-up list not available or unscheduled

Alternate service – no guidelines/language available for acceptable or disallowed alternatives

 

Senate President will draft a charge to Academic Policies chair to develop recommendations for parameters in determining adequate committee service or substitution and forward to the Academic Senate.

 

 

 

 

3.0        REPORTS

 

3.1    Bookstore Manager:  John Lorelli

Due to illness Mr. Lorelli was not able to attend. In his attached report he states that the college can reduce costs by: using text for more than two years; order early; eliminate bundling.

 

Concerns: 40% of book orders are not ordered by bookstore deadline, and faculty need to know that there are cost consequences for students.  Concern was expressed that book order routing and handling, especially to adjunct faculty, may contribute to the problem.  Additional concern was expressed about the perceived high bookstore mark-up of textbooks and about the process by which students sell their books to a third party rather than to the bookstore directly.

                          

 

Request: bring back as a discussion item at next Senate meeting.

 

3.2        President

 

A short biographical paragraph was requested of the senators for the purpose of identifying us on our web page.  A template will be designed for next meeting.

 

President asked if all division faculty have been assigned to a committee.  The response was that the process was nearly complete.

 

Concern: are Senate members responsible for committee/alternative assignments for all eligible members in the division?  The discussion that followed seemed to conclude that it was our responsibility.

 

3.3    Executive Vice-President

The summer and fall 2004 schedule building process will begin early for OSS preparation.  Summer and fall will be the same size as the previous schedule respectively.

 

 The credit program has been asked to reduce by 10  FTES from  Spring ’04.  Non-credit will reduce 240 – 250 FTES from its Winter and Spring quarters.

 

Given the possibility of significant budget reductions for 2004-05, each area of the college will be asked to develop a contingency plan if this were to occur.

 

Mid-year transfers to UC and CSU are being limited and affect approximately 300 students. Those students will now be enrolling in more City College classes rather than transferring.

 

4.0        DISCUSSION

 

4.1        Procedures for Replacement and New Tenure-Track Positions – handout

We are currently scheduled to hold hearings on November 5 and 12.  The Fall 2004 faculty hiring obligation estimate is 18 positions.  They are as follows: 

        

6 were part of fall 2003 obligation (temporary contracts hired)

         4 were previously waived

         5 late retirements/departures

3 additional replacement positions – since the Senate last met three new

                  retirements/resignations have been announced.

1 new position – with a possibility of up to 3

 

Question:  How do we determine if all departments that submitted requests last year still want new positions filled?

 

1)      9 tenure track replacement positions were approved for this year  but  put on hold. Pending any major changes should these positions be automatically approved? What might the mitigating circumstances be? EVP will bring data to next meeting.

 

EVP recommends the Senate approve the nine tenure track replacement positions that were approved to be filled for this year, if there are no substantial change in the data supporting those positions.

 

M/S Support the top 9 tenure track replacement positions previously approved from 2003 (O’Connor/Rose)

 

2)      How should the retirements/resignations/departures announced in Spring/Summer 2003 be handled? 10-17 unranked.

 

M/S   Request replacement positions numbers 10-17 to present supporting data and give presentations to Academic Senate for evaluation if they choose to request a position. (O’Connor/Garey)

 

3)      New faculty positions were ranked and not filled with contract faculty for Fall 2003.  EVP stated that, from his perspective, a minimum of one and as many as four of these positions could be ranked as “new” positions.

 

M/S Invite departments to submit proposals for new hires with an advisory that resources will be very limited and that few of these  positions will be approved (Garey/O’Connor)

 

Request: to arrange in advance the program/equipment used in the ranking process.

 

4.2        Evaluation of College Plan

Specific components of the College Plan are being evaluated. Given probable budget constraints, should priorities on behalf of faculty be identified?

                   

CPC is evaluating how best to approach evaluations and efforts for year 2 and 3 of the plan. Identify objectives that are top priority and specify the resources and dollar amounts needed to achieve the objective.

 

What role does the Senate wish to have in this process?

1. Which objectives deserve priority and the additional resources needed?

2. Which objectives should not be considered due to limited resources?

 

Progress and status report of College plan objectives was requested.

 

EVP will present his report at next meeting on his objective recommendations for year 2 and 3 of the plan.

 

 

5.0    ADJOURNMENT___