Present:    Nancy A. Brown, David Balogh, Andre Neu, Nancy K. Brown, Lisa Feintech, Jay Jackson, Mary Ellen Sullivan, Helene Jara, Kim Belliveau, Dorothy Nunn, Bill Hill, Olivia Hand, Louis Compoginis, Celia Rabinovitch, Topsy Smalley, Rory O’Brien

Guests:     Claire Biancalana

Staff:        Bronze Freeman

I.         Call To Order
The meeting was called to order at 3:09p.m.

II.       Review of Minutes of August 28th Meeting
Page 4, 2nd paragraph, delete “standards that will become performance based for 0-5 months old children” and replace with the language, “performance based standards for children 0-5 years”.  Lisa moved to approve the amended minutes. Jay seconded the motion. The motion to adopt was passed unanimously.

III.      Reports
A. HASS Resolution- Nancy A. Brown
Nancy noted the origin of one of the items. For the HASS Division Flex Day, Nancy, Rory and Topsy had presented on the new Accreditation Standards. HASS has informally approved a resolution regarding the Learner Outcomes. This item will be discussed later in today’s agenda.

B. Report to Governing Board 9/9/02- Nancy A. Brown
Nancy distributed copies of her report to the Governing Board. Nancy noted that she was elected Senate President originally just after AB1725 had passed; one of the most important provisions of the legislation had been the mandated increase in classes taught by contract faculty. Nancy noted that both the state and local Senate had failed in meeting the goal.

Nancy noted that Keith Shaffer, first President of the Cabrillo College Governing Board, had established the Shaffer Grant; Keith subsequently removed his name from the award and it became known as a faculty grant. Keith had recently contacted Frank Lynch regarding the down turn in the market and had donated $5000.00 of his own money into the fund. This had been noted in Nancy’s speech to the Board. There is now $16,500.00 available to distribute to faculty. Claire noted that there would be a ceremony in November for faculty who received a grant; Keith will be there if you would like to personally thank him.

Nancy, referring back to her speech, pointed out that the 2nd paragraph has asked Board members to refer to the budget reports in their Board books. Nancy noted her research had gone back to 1985 through old Board books and Accreditation Reports for the percentages quoted in her speech. Referring to the third paragraph, Claire noted that the Ed. Code states that “tenured faculty” are “regular faculty”. Nancy noted that only there had been an increase of only 2 regular faculty in 20 years; there had been an expansion and contraction in the budget during that period. Nancy noted that in “sheer numbers” in the Accreditation Report, the number of administrators and classified has grown, but depending upon the year looked at.

Nancy noted again that she had given this speech to the Board. She would like both Cabrillo College and the Academic Senate to look at this issue of hiring contract faculty.  Nancy remarked on the need to organize and to “make a push for contract faculty”. Nancy remarked that the profession will fall apart; people will not get their Masters Degrees to be hired for work with no benefits and no pay.

In response to Andre’s question regarding the CEO’s request to be excused from the mandated hiring of new faculty by 50% of their obligation, Nancy replied that there is no growth money to hire full-time faculty. The CEO’s had negotiated in consultation to not have to hire full-time faculty to have the ability to use the money elsewhere; CEO’s want to only meet 50%, program based funding originally went with the AB1725. The CEO’s are asking to be released and only responsible for 50%. David B. noted that Chancellor Nussbaum had tried to require AB1725. Claire remarked that she did not have a problem with what Nancy was saying; Claire had always stated that, “faculty are our greatest resource”.  Claire noted that President John Hurd had not attended the conference where the decision regarding the CEO’s had been made. When President Hurd had been in consultation, he had pushed for adjuncts. Claire noted that between 1982 and 2002 there had been “two enormous budget deficits and faculty had been lost”, that was why the number of full-time had only increased by two. Claire remarked that Instruction had also received more mandates; more regulations resulted in the hiring of more managers. Claire agreed that there are more classified and managers than full-time faculty. Claire stated that money had been lost, but not the laws, so the services still have to be provided. Nancy noted that more classes are being offered, but many sections have had to be closed.

Mary Ellen inquired if Counselors had been included in the percentages between 1982 and 2002. Nancy responded in the affirmative. Mary Ellen noted that if the Counselors are removed from the numbers, the number of full-time is lower. Nancy noted that there had been growth in the Library and in Counseling. David jokingly remarked that if more money is lost, the administrators could teach a class to gain perspective.

C. Faculty Senate Representatives- David Balogh
David had asked Divisions for names of representatives. David distributed a list of faculty on the “Faculty Senate Membership Terms of Constituency” and a list of faculty on the Division Curriculum Committees and asked the Senate for corrections or additions. The list for NAS and HWPEA is correct. HASS needs an occupational representative; Rory O’Brien and Eric Carter’s names were deleted.  Andre Neu was added and Sharon Peters and Marcy Alancraig’s names were deleted from BELA’s Division Curriculum Committee. VAPA’s constituency on the Division Curriculum Committee needs to be confirmed.

Stephanie Staley and Topsy Smalley are the representatives for the Library on the Senate. David noted that Chuck Smith’s seat would be up for re-election this Fall; the Vice President/President elect seat as well as the four areas noted on the list are up for re-election.  David B. inquired if there should be a turnover of the seats every four years and the Division would be responsible for replacing the Senator for completion of term. Nancy responded that the Divisions should decide on the terms; there is already a mechanism for At-Large Senators. David B. inquired if the years should be dropped entirely and only use the process for the elected seats; David noted that past practice had been two years. Andre suggested alternating two years to provide coverage from experienced Senators. Dorothy concurred with Andre’s suggestion. David B. asked the Senate to provide input to him regarding their “wishes”. Nancy noted that this would be an agenda item for the next meeting. David B. inquired if the Senate should begin the two years now and then alternate rollover and noted the need for a Secretary on the Senate. Nancy asked the Senate to speak with their constituents and a decision will be made at the next meeting.

D. SEIU- Helene Jara
The Classifieds worked hard over the summer to prepare for the reorganization. There are concerns regarding finances and the theme is the hope that “we can all work together in hard times”.

IV.      Action Items
A. Curriculum- Claudia Close
This item was tabled.

V.       Old Business
A. Accreditation Standards, The HASS Division Resolution- Rory and Nancy A.
This item was placed on hold.

VI.      Information Items
A. Student Development Faculty Representation- Helene Jara
Helene noted that Student Development does not belong to a Division and is represented by DSPS faculty. There are a total of 15 Counselors under Student Development and they would like to have a representative on the Faculty Senate. Olivia noted that there are 19 Counselors total in the Divisions.

Nancy inquired if the 15 Counselors were represented elsewhere. Claire noted that they are faculty and should be represented. Nancy K. moved to add a seat on the Senate for a Student Development faculty representative. Bill seconded the motion.

Jay asked Helene whom she was currently representing on the Senate. Helene replied that she had no vote and was representing SEIU. Olivia inquired if there were other small groups on campus that may need representation. Claire responded that she did not think so; Nancy responded that she did not know. Claire noted that when the departments were placed in the Divisions during the reorganization, Student Development had been the only ones for forward the request for representation. The motion was approved unanimously. Helene will be the representative for Student Development faculty.

B. Academic Staffing Priority Process- Nancy A. Brown
Nancy noted that  “Division Deans” had been replaced with “Deans”. Nancy asked that when the Senate looked at the process, they should consider the politics. The “big fight” in CPC is to hire Contract Faculty. If this process went into “limbo”, Nancy would be unable to argue for positions at CPC. This issue will be discussed and brought back in the spring for re-discussion.

Nancy asked the Senate to look at the strike out in step 6. Claire noted that Instruction Council had reminded her that when the Faculty Senate take votes, they can vote their own positions and asked why it should be different for the Deans. Claire believed that “all can elevate from their own departments and think of the college on the whole, so if the Faculty Senate can remove themselves from their own depths, so Division Deans can elevate above the Divisions.” Topsy would like to see the norm of people rising above their Divisions. In response to Andre’s question regarding the process, Nancy responded that the Divisions forward requests to the Dean, then a faculty member attends Faculty Senate, and the Instruction Council in support of the position. The groups then vote; the Vice President of Instruction looks at the votes and the considerations and makes a decision regarding the positions. Nancy K. noted that it would be a complex task for the Divisions to do the ranking in the new reorganization. Nancy K. clarified that she was not stating that the steps were inappropriate, but simply remarking that a new situation exists.

Nancy cited an example in which a Division had voted to create a new Philosophy position; someone had stood up and said, “don’t pay attention to the numbers”. Nancy noted that thankfully the Division had passed for the new position by a margin. David B. noted that on the other side of the coin, there was a strong recommendation from a Division Chair to send only one position forward, instead of three or four positions. David B. noted that it was critical that Divisions meet and decide on a process for this. Nancy noted that reason is to hire faculty to meet student needs. Claire remarked that not all positions requested are received and noted that in 1982, the President had made the decision regarding positions. Claire noted the need for faculty to make this “difficult decision”.

Claire noted that in step 6, “Division” was deleted to allow the three Instructional Deans to vote. In response to Nancy question as to what the Senate thought about the three Deans having voting power, Rory replied that it would make it fair if they were involved to allow them to advance positions, and they could be lobbied for votes. David B. remarked that it was a “red herring”.

Andre noted that Division Deans have a closer relationship to faculty than the Instruction Deans. He would not have a sense of being connected to the Instruction Deans. Claire noted that the Instruction Deans have knowledge of what goes on outside the college and that their voting would bring another “depth” to the process. Nancy clarified the roles of the Instruction Deans and noted that they do not supervise faculty. Helene noted that Loreen Easterly supervised Student Development, Fast Track, MESA, DSPS and Learning Skills. Celia asked if the Instructional Deans vote would be advisory. The three votes could be balance for the five Deans; Celia believed that the three votes could add balance in terms of equality. David B. noted that the size and complexity of the committee has changed drastically. The amount of advocacy for the existing program has changed. David asked the Senate to remember that this was an advisory to the Vice President of Instruction. Andre noted that he would feel disenfranchised if for example each of the five Division Deans brought forth a position, and then the Instructional Deans brought two more positions forward.

In response to Helene’s question as to whether or not Bette Hirsch and Rock Pfotenhauer supervised faculty, Claire responded in the affirmative; Bette supervises Mary Ellen. Helene noted that Loreen Easterly is the “voice” for Student Development. Dorothy remarked that if the Instructional Deans bring outside information to the Division Deans, then maybe the Instruction Deans should act in an advisory position to the Division Deans and not have a vote. Nancy K. noted that it was not just about voting; the three Instructional Deans would be intergrated into the process, even if they were not putting a position forward. If they could not vote, there would be representation missing for those positions.

Claire noted that the Instruction Council had suggested the changes. The Instructional Deans are already in the process up until step 6. They are excluded from the next step, but still “do the work, and attend the meetings.” Andre suggested then stating “Deans” throughout the process. David B. noted that the voting is the issue of conflict.

Nancy next addressed the worksheet that is used in the process and noted that is represents a quantitative method to rank the positions. Please look at the worksheet and make suggestions for changes. Rory noted on 2b, that the waitlist in Datatel is only for 15 students. Claire noted the number 15 was for balance; it will allow students to be pushed into other classes. Claire asked that the process not be delayed as to allow it to move forward. Nancy noted the need to get the requests to the Board, not the process, but the positions. Nancy agreed with Claire that it was important to move forward with the process. This item can be revisited. Claire noted that this was the first time that the process would have the 15-student limitation. Claire asked if names could be tentatively submitted, as any changes would not be approved until the next Senate meeting. Lisa suggested an e-mail vote. Nancy asked the Senators to speak with their colleagues and have an e-mail vote in one week; Nancy clarified the two changes. Claire will forward the revised Academic Staffing Priority process to Nancy who will forward it to the Senate; please send back your vote. Claire reiterated the need to move forward on the process.

C. Concerns related to changes in course names and programs- Mary Ellen
This item was tabled. Mary Ellen noted that a group of people, including Counselors and Matriculation are working on Degree Audits, which allows a student number to be put into Datatel, Datatel then notes which courses a student would still need to take. Mary Ellen noted that when a course name changes, it is an “absolute nightmare”. It is difficult to counsel students when the names change. Ideas will be pooled at the next meeting. Mary Ellen noted the need for faculty to be aware of the consequences of name changes in both state and local areas. Mary Ellen noted that Dale Attias suggested that faculty would have to have a compelling reason to change a course name.

Olivia asked if Datatel was unable to do the equivalency with the name changes. Mary Ellen responded that Datatel could equate, the problems concern the students and finding courses in catalog. At the next meeting, Mary Ellen will bring a presentation of the effects of name changes. Mary Ellen clarified that she does not want to tell the faculty what to do, but would like them to be aware of the effects. Nancy noted that Fiesta makes it easy to tweak curriculum. Mary Ellen informed Nancy that she would be receiving the document from Loreen that she had been expecting. Topsy noted that she sits on an advisory committee for Vocation and believes the name changes are driven by industry; Topsy noted the need to speak with Divisions.

V.       Old Business
A. Accreditation Standards- Nancy A. and Rory
Nancy noted that she, Rory and Topsy had presented to HASS, including the research done by Topsy on For-Profit schools.

Nancy noted that people had been interested and had wanted to do a resolution; there is nothing substantive yet. Rory distributed copies of the resolution draft from HASS; this resolution could be used for HASS only or Cabrillo College. The resolution has not gone back to HASS yet; ideas were brought together from both the Senate and HASS.. Nancy read through the resolution. Topsy suggested that the Senate start paying attention to those schools that are due for accreditation and begin speaking with them.

Nancy remarked that HASS had wanted the resolution; it should be a Senate resolution before being sent to the State Academic Senate. Nancy asked that the Senate work on the resolution; this item will be brought back to the next meeting.

Celia commented that an instructor at the Division meeting was at the Learner Outcome Institute and their feeling had been that Cabrillo College had to comply with the standards. Celia feels the language is too ambiguous. Nancy remarked that there is no obligation for the administration to provide resources to conform to specific standards. Topsy noted that Learner Outcomes could be adopted; it does have some good uses. Topsy stressed that Cabrillo College needs to make it clear that they have the choice to refuse to be imposed upon. David B. noted that anytime there is a mandate, the state auditors could look at it and refuse it stating lack of funding. David noted that Cabrillo College could state “no faith” in AACJC; “a vote of no confidence would take care of this.” David remarked that it has never been stated “too loudly, but the past Accreditation Standards are now lost.”

Nancy noted the two issues: 1) the issue of leaving out resources (the Accreditation Standards left out “inputs” which should be put back in) and 2) shared governance. Celia felt that the resolution was “fantastic, it addresses functional content of Learner Outcomes but need the sense included that the language is ambiguous and needs clearer definition.” Nancy K. noted that she would like work done on the resolution before the next meeting. Nancy A. suggested striking “HASS” and replacing it with “Cabrillo College faculty”. Louis suggested publishing a list of who the representatives are of the Faculty Senate along with a copy of the resolution for feedback.

VIII.   Agenda Building
§ Student Development
§ E-mail vote on Academic Staffing Priority Process
§ Curriculum

IX.      Items From the Floor
There were none.

X.       Adjournment
Nancy K. moved to adjourn. Louis seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 5:10pm.