M I N U T E S
March 17, 2004
3:00 p.m. - BC214
Members Present: Jim Chesher, Esther Frankel, Jack Friedlander, Michelle Fulton, Tom Garey, Peter Haslund (Chair), Mary Lawson (for Sue Broderick), Tom Mahoney, Kim Monda, Kathy OıConnor, Peter Rojas, Lana Rose, Jan Schultz, Sheri Shields, Bob Stockero
Member(s) Absent: Barbara Bell, Susan Broderick, Gary Carroll, Sonia Zuniga-Lomeli.
Guest(s): Art Olguin, Mangai Pitchai, The Channels
1.0 CALL TO ORDER
1.1 Approval of Minutes
w/corrections. There was an extended discussion about both the existing and proposed policy on smoking vs what the state has mandated. The discussion also focused on the three options proposed and whether option 4.1 b. was really an option and not a mandate even if designated smoking areas were established.
M/S/C To approve the Minutes of the Academic Senate, 3/10/04 (Monda/Frankel)
1.2 Approval of the Agenda the Agenda was approved.
2.0 INFORMATION (Announcements, Communications)
2.1 Memorial Service for Brad Jones: Rick Mokler did a beautiful job of organizing a thoughtful, student centered, service. Chancellor Henry Yang and the UCSB Chair of the Academic Senate, Walter Yuen, were in attendance.
2.2 The revised Meeting Schedule grid was presented and options discussed.
2.3 Danish Ambassador: Ambassador Ulrik Federspiel will appear at 12:30 on March 24, A-211 and all are welcome.
2.4 Faculty Lecture: Janet Shapiro will enlighten us about ³Whether Pigs have Wings: Disability and the Search for Reasonable Public Policy,² from 2 to 3:30, March 24.
2.5 The March on Sacramento: The EVP reported that approximately 20,000 were in attendance including senators and included supporters from SBCC where two of our students gave wonderful presentations. The bad news: The L.A. Times reported that Donna Arduin was unmoved because Community College budgets are being augmented and views the enrollment fee increase to be a modest one.
3.1 Macro Issues Dialog.
Jan Schultz presented a report from P&R requesting a role in exploring specific core issues. After discussion, it was decided to add P&R to the following sections of the ³Senate Recommendations² column: I. f, II. a, c, d, e and f.
Peter Rojas wanted to know how to convey the overlapping participation of P&R with the Committee on Teaching and Learning. Concern: having two committees work on the same issue is wasteful. Have designated issues assigned to committees. Schedule a joint meeting if more than one committee is working on the same topic. Outcome: Senate President sees no problem with having two committees looking at the same issue.
The Senate continued with Item VI, Academic Senate Structure and Function.
a. To gather all known policies including those governing the student services area. To check against M. James database for missing items. To track approval dates and if /when policies went to the Board. To update where needed such as name changes throughout the documents, and titles more useful for search engine requirements. Create a cross-referencing system and get everything up on the web. This is a special assignment for Lana Rose until June 30, 2004. The EVP has approved additional time if needed for this very important task. Anticipated point of completion: end of Fall 2004
b. Senate President to meet with current committee chairs as part of a process of determining whether our structure is sufficient. The results will be shared with Steering which will prepare a set of recommendations. It was suggested that some committee chairs meet directly with Steering. Question: will this go beyond Senate committees? The EVP is open to that suggestion. For example Scholastic Standards, an Educational Programs committee, is going to deliberate on the desirability and feasibility of taking on the issue of ethics as part of their task/function.
c. Invite Peter Naylor to a Steering committee to communicate with greater specificity as to what he is suggesting.
The preliminary review of the issues raised by faculty colleagues has now concluded. Next, we will either deal with each issue or refer to a committee and track the progress.
3.2 Constitutional Revision:
A petition recommending a Constitutional Amendment was offered by Gary Carroll, Tom Garey, Jim Chesher, Kim Monda and Peter Rojas. The effect of the Amendment would be to shorten the term of office for the President-Elect and the Immediate Past President, reducing the commitment for the office of President from 4 to 3 years.
Currently: The President is elected for a two-year term. However the commitment is to serve as President-elect for one year and Past-president for one year, creating the 4-year commitment.
Tom Garey pointed out any changes caused by the proposed Amendment within the Constitution and Bylaws.
· An amendment can be initiated by either 20% of the full-time faculty or by five members of the Academic Senate.
· Five members of the Academic Senate have initiated this proposal. Within twenty working days a constitutional revision committee must be convened
· Convene the entire Senate as the constitutional revision committee to craft and approve the language for the proposed change
· The work of the constitutional revision committee is not to approve or disapprove the proposal but to prepare the proposal for a faculty ballot.
· Identify sources for pro and con positions to the proposed amendment.
Question: Is this the proper forum where the merits of the petition can be discussed? The merits can always be discussed.
Concern: Lana Rose expressed the concern that previous amendments have been discussed and adopted by the Senate as a whole before submitting the question to the entire faculty for a vote.
Response: Tom Garey noted that our Constitution provides for alternative approaches by which amendments may be introduced and that this particular approach is entirely consistent with provisions of the Constitution.
Concern: Kathy OıConnor spoke of the need for a full year to allow an incoming President to grasp all that is required.
Response: Jan Schultz pointed out that very few elected positions have a year of on the job training and that there are a number of mentors and reinforcements available within the college environment.
Concern: That the CPC membership could be adversely affected by the change.
Response: The President would appoint not one but two members to CPC.
Process: A Committee on Constitutional Revision must be created to review proposed changes to the Constitution in order to insure that the changes are consistent with the petition.
M/S/C To appoint the Academic Senate as a Committee of the Whole to serve as the Committee on Constitutional Revision at the next Senate meeting so that we may have a full and open discussion on the language being proposed to the amendment with the full senate. (Garey/Schultz) Unanimous
Tom Garey concluded this discussion by pointing out that this is a relatively innocuous effort to improve Senate operations. This is not an effort to subvert. There is nothing untoward about this proposal.
4.1 Web Standards Policy:
BP 3730 Web Standards Policy was returned to the Senate for review and approval.
M/S/C To adopt BP 3730 Web Standards Policy (OıConnor/Shields) Unanimous
4.2 Smoking Policy:
The proposed policy language has returned for review and approval. The concept of designated smoking areas was approved by majority vote at the 3/10/04 meeting. The language is written to coincide with the designated smoking area option. If another option is chosen then the language will need to be changed.
At CPC the EVP asked student senate representatives to offer their perspective, which was to not support the designated smoking area concept. The student senate representatives support the 20 ft. approach with an educational campaign and the rationale was the cost of constructing the designated smoking areas and would not be observed by students anyway. However, if the campus went with designated areas they could accept that.
CSEA was also against the designated areas. They were worried about staff during inclement weather. Convenience at breaks; itıs easier to adhere to the 20 ft. regulation.
VP of Business Services felt the designated areas would be the more workable and manageable. The Schott and Wake Center have gone to designated areas and it seems to be working well.
CPC postponed the vote until the Senate had an opportunity to do so.
M/S/C To approve the #2510 Smoke-Free Workplace Policy as presented with the addition in brackets at the end of text the reference ³compliant with AB 846, Chapter 342² (OıConnor/Stockero) 9 aye 5 opposed
5.1 Student Learning Outcomes:
Jack Friedlander reported on the ³New Accreditation Requirements for Assessing Student Learning Outcomes. Ultimately an agreement on process, of how we organize ourselves to address this, will need to be reached at some point in the future.
The requirements are significant and transformational. Experts report it will require a 10-15 year effort.
The driving force of this has to do with growing concerns about the value of the Carnegie unit, the unit of credit, grades, even a degree. All have lost value due to the varied course deliveries and measures. Employers are complaining. Students are graduating high school with 3.5/4.0 GPAs and are two levels below college English and math. Employers are saying college grads canıt think, canıt write.
In the next two to three years the college will again undergo a self-study and at that time the new Accreditation Standards will require documentation that the expected Student Learning Outcomes have been established at the course, program and certificate/degree level. Evidence will then be required to show how these have been achieved.
In the self-study report we will be evaluated on the progress made toward achieving the new Accreditation Standards such as:
Document that expected student learning outcomes have been established (context and level of learning)
Document Institutional (effectiveness) assessment of learning
Results Used to Design & Implement Institutional Improvements
Criteria for Effective Assessment
The Scoggins report goes into much more specificity.
Suggested steps towards developing SBCCs approach to assessing SLOs:
· Summer Institute (4 three-hour sessions or more)
· Initiate campus conversation on SLOs during Fall 2004 In-Service days
· During Fall 04 invite small groups of faculty to participate in seminars
· Academic Year 2004-2005 Develop College Plan for SLOs
· Spring 05 In-Service Day conference
· Spring 05 invite addition faculty participation
· Summer 2005 Second Summer SLO Institute
· 2005-2006 Repeat process that took place in 2004-2005
Concern was voiced about the cost of this endeavor, both in terms of money and faculty time.
5.2 Presidentıs Report:
Due to the lack of time to complete the report, most of it was delayed until our next meeting. The President did ask for unanimous consent for the appointment of two Senate representatives to the Faculty Lecturer Committee: Peter Rojas and Barbara Bell. There were no objections.
Our next meeting will begin with a short summary of the SLO issue by Jack Friedlander and a continuation of the Presidents Report, but the meeting will focus largely on the Constitutional Amendment issue.
6.0 ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Next scheduled meeting, March 24, 2004. NEW START TIME 4:00 p.m. (this meeting only)