FACULTY SENATE
Minutes: February 1, 2001
3:00pm To 5:00pm, Room 111

FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES: February 27, 2001
3:00p.m. To 5:00p.m., Room 111

Present:       David Balogh, Nancy A. Brown, Rory O’Brien, Eric Carter, Steve Hodges, Jay Siskin, Lisa Feintech, Robin McFarland, Joseph Ribeiro, Belita Magee, Letitia Scott-Curtis, Topsy Smalley, Steve Cox, David Sullivan, Marcy Alancraig, Claudia Close, Donna Mekis, Helene Jara

Absent:       Micki Witzig, Nick Roberts, Chuck Smith

Guests:        Claire Biancalana, Rock Pfotenhauer, Al Holbert, Wendy Ostrow, Rosemary Brogan

Staff:           Bronze Freeman

I.       Call to Order

          The meeting was called to order at 3:02p.m.

II.      Minutes

         The minute’s corrections page with appropriate modifications will be placed as an action item on an upcoming agenda. The minutes and the modified minutes were approved. Claire had two subsequent corrections, on Page 1, under Reports, change “The Stand Back Stroud Award” to read “The Stanbach-Stroud Diversity Advisory Award”. On Page 3, second paragraph, change “80 ADS” to read “80S”. A motion was made to approve the corrected minutes. Eric seconded the motion. The amended minutes were accepted and adopted.

III.    Reports

     A. Curriculum Committee: Claudia remarked that at the February 21 meeting, the committee had over 350 items to consider. Half of those items had been reviewed, so the need for a third meeting would probably not be needed, as the meeting on February 28 should cover the remainder of items. Loreen will address the issue of possibly removing the terminology, “or equivalent” from certain English courses.

    B. Changes to Faculty Senate Meeting Locations: David Balogh
         March 13, 3:00pm to 5:00pm- will meet in Room 454. This will be the second meeting regarding DART and all Senators are invited to the DART Forum.
         March 27, 3:00pm to 5:00pm- will meet in Room 1804, Sesnon House.

    C. Technology for Teaching: David Balogh has had no response yet as to which Senators are interested in attending this conference. Chuck and Jay expressed interest in attending. Two more faculty have also expressed an interest, Bill Hill and Lalu Simcik. This will be placed as an action item on the agenda to determine which two faculty will attend.

D. CIP: Claudia
         CIP has agreed on a format for reviewing instructional plans. 2 readers have been assigned to each author of each plan. Non-resource requiring plans were removed from the prioritization. The plans will be reviewed in terms of projects not items, and will be ranked from ten to one, ten will be high.

IV.    Action

    A.  Nancy requested resolution on an issue that she had presented to Claire two weeks ago. Claire will provide resolution.

    B.  David Balogh had completed the Faculty Senate’s Standing Committee’s 2001 Web Page. David asked the Senators to review the web page and inform him of any missing links, corrections or additions needed. David informed the Senators that they might obtain minutes of the various committees’ through their links.

    C.  David Balogh posed a question to the Senators. In the future, David would like new Senators to take the committee assignments of the Senator that they are replacing, until an appropriate representative can be appointed. This will placed as an action item on the agenda. David noted that representatives on committees do not always have to be a Faculty Senator, but are always appointed by the Senate.

    D. Notes: David Balogh: 1) The Bookstore is not on today’s agenda, as a representative was unavailable to speak to the Senate today. 2) Regarding the Academic Calendar, Gloria will speak at the next Senate meeting.

V.     Old Business

    A. Campus Cruiser Update – Al Holbert
         Al spoke to the Senate to dispel rumors and answer questions about Campus Cruiser.
Ø The Technology Committee had authorized Al to present this to the Board before Christmas of last year.
Ø The agreement will be accepted at the next 2001 Board meeting.
Ø If Campus Cruiser had been purchased by December 31, 2000, there would have been an up front savings of $100,000.00 and $15,000 to $20,000 each year after that.
Ø As no resolution had been reached by December 31, the negotiations have been extended for three months until March 31, 2001.
Ø The Board Item requests signature approval to proceed with the purchase.
Ø The agreement is non-binding; there will be no fine (Nancy suggested penalty, but I believe Al said fine?) if Cabrillo College decides to pull out after installation. But, the Datatel link does have to be paid for with an annual cost of $2500.00 for service and support.
Ø The Portal would provide calendar and other capabilities. The ability to have 3 separate email accounts would be possible, ex: if a student were emailing a faculty member, the email would automatically be forwarded to the account the faculty member was currently using.
Ø Alumni would have free email accounts.
Ø There would be a List Serve for each course and it would have the capability to mail an item to every student in the class.
Ø Faculty could do their own course descriptions, if they did not like the format, a link could be created to the faculty member’s own web page or the page could be done entirely separately.
Ø Regarding the issue of ads, according to Al every campus portal, with the exception of local portals uses advertising. The 1 inch x 4 inch ad would appear at the top of the screen. If Cabrillo College feels that the content of the ad is not appropriate, the ad would be pulled.
Ø Al noted that he also had concerns regarding advertising, but the cost of operating without the ads would be $70,000.00 per year.
Ø Al reminded the Senate that they are under no obligation to use the software.
Ø Regarding Topsy’s question about Campus Cruiser and Datatel, Al remarked that he could not answer for Campus Cruiser, but in terms of interface with Datatel, a batch process from his group would refresh the system every day. Al noted that the process was close to being dynamic and would reflect students adding and dropping classes.
Ø Al remarked that Campus Cruiser is only available to Datatel users.
Ø Donna inquired if there would be music on the advertisements, Al believed not but if that were the case it would simply be a matter of removing it. Regarding Donna’s questions as to whether events could be emailed to all students, Al presumes yes, but he will let Donna know for sure.
Ø According to Al, there are 8 California Datatel campus’s currently installing Campus Cruiser, 240 campus cruisers nationwide.

Rory remarked that he had taken a look at Campus Cruiser, and had not been offended by the advertisements. Rory felt that Campus Cruiser “offers tremendous capability in terms of communication”. Joseph wanted assurances that the size of the ads would not increase from 1 inch x 4 inch. Al agreed. Al assured Topsy that advertisements would not appear on Cabrillo College’s web page. Regarding the new email account questions posed to new users, Al is working on having the questions default to “no”, and reassured the Senate that all the information would remain internal and confidential.

Al informed the Senate that in March when he visits Washington, he would take a look at the web advisor Datatel product that does rosters, online grades, etc. He is looking to integrate that product with Campus Cruiser.

David Sullivan expressed concern with where Campus Cruiser would move Cabrillo College in the future. Letitia questioned Cabrillo College having accountability for student designed web pages. Al remarked that could be a yes or no decision regarding whether or not to have student web pages, but there is also the issue of free speech.

In closing, Al asked the Senate to take into consideration the cost of purchasing Campus Cruiser as opposed the $250,000.00 cost of Cabrillo College having to design their own Portal. Al stressed the importance of the Senate’s input before the next Technology Committee meeting, as the timing for deliberations would be roughly 30 days after March 31, 2001 to make a decision. Campus Cruiser would like to begin putting the student email account packets together.

David Balogh asked the Senators to please address any further questions or concerns to Al and to address this issue with their constituencies. David will place this as an action item on the March 27 agenda.

B. DART
         David reminded the Senators that they had had two weeks to consider this. Claudia provided a brief synopsis from the last DART meeting regarding the pilot program and the upcoming Forum. Terry Fetterman had remarked previously that while Claire handles Instruction during the remodeling, it is the responsibility of the faculty to take care of the departments.

         Key concerns voiced by Senators regarding the restructure were:
Ø Joseph-Only one model option
Ø Donna-timeframe-moving too quickly, Faculty Senate and CCFT need to discuss this
Ø Topsy voiced her concerns as to where the Library would be placed to which Claire replied that decisions regarding the placements of departments has not yet been decided
Ø David Sullivan felt the model moved away from a faculty model to an administrative model, to which David Balogh replied that the new model proposed actually provides all faculty with a faculty lead person. This lead person would understand the importance of the issues, while a Dean may not.
Ø Steve Cox expressed concern with the additional layer of administration resulting in more bureaucracy. Steve felt the classroom should not be moved far from the administrative level.
Ø Belita, speaking for the counselors, expressed five concerns: 1) effect on Student Services? 2) lack of discussion, 3) cost factor, 4) additional administrative level and 5) retreat rights of Deans.

David Balogh informed Belita that retreat rights are automatic for tenured faculty, but not for Deans hired from the outside. Claire noted that AB1725 had changed in 1989, and that the changes allow for administrators who are not tenured to be released into the classroom to accrue tenure. David Balogh reminded the Senators that this model was the DART committee’s recommendation. The Faculty Senate cannot decide on the instructional organization of the college or on the number of Deans in the model, but David felt that this model serves the faculty.

      Donna expressed two concerns, 1) DC’s are management and all Cabrillo College’s DC’s are tenured. If our DC’s do not want to apply for the new Dean positions, Cabrillo would be inundated with a lot of outside administrators. 2) Why not hire 4 strong classified positions to support the current DC model?

In response to Donna’s concerns, Claire replied that teaching experience would be listed on the Dean job description and that only some DC’s would apply for the Dean position as it is a 12 month position. Claire remarked that hiring 4 classified positions to support the DC’s would not be financially possible. Claire noted that DART had looked at a number of models, and had felt that this model focused on faculty needs, and that people with management experience needed to be hired, as faculty are here to teach and most faculty do not have administrative experience. The model looks at Deans for longevity in the position, as they would be unable to return to the classroom. Claire reminded the Senate that she had been adverse to structural changes until the DC’s had pushed her into looking at new options.

Steve Hodges remarked that the new model is similar structurally to his department, and felt the model put “more power into the hands of the Academic Program Directors”. Claire noted that the Academic Program Directors would become the lead faculty in the new model, and that that faculty that currently had an Academic Program Director could more easily accept the new model.

Marcy felt it was extremely important to educate people regarding the process, even if ultimately they had no say in it. Helene concurred from an SEIU standpoint. Joseph questioned what would become of the adjunct in this model to which David Balogh replied that retreat rights would not cover adjunct faculty and that this issue would need to be addressed. Claudia remarked on four points, 1) the issue of “buy-in” and that the criteria had been supplied to the Senate, 2) issues needed to be addressed regarding the structure and the expense would not be that much more, 3) the lead faculty would make the decisions that the DC’s currently make and the job descriptions are being worked on and 4) the Senate must ask themselves what role they want to play in the organization of the departments if they accept the model. Claire reminded the Senate that DART was a type of representational organization with representatives from SEIU, DC’s, Program Directors and the Faculty Senate. Today was the first discussion of the Senate regarding the model.

Lisa stressed the importance of remembering that most faculty have no idea of the impacts and stress on the DC position. David concurred, noting the high turnover rate.

Nancy clarified AB1725 the administrative right to organize, but the faculty can determine the minimum qualifications for disciplines and the placement of courses within programs. Nancy cited the 5 petitions that she had received from departments regarding requests as to their placement, ex: Dance does not want to be with Athletics. Nancy felt that input should be solicited from the departments before deciding where they belong. David remarked that at one DART meeting, they had worked on hypothetical placements, and noted that in one scenario, he had figuratively been split in half.

Eric remarked that HAS echoed those sentiments. The main concern expressed was with having 5 Deans only, and felt the process would be slowed with so many people reporting to each Dean, and the lack of the Dean’s experience. Letitia asked Claire for the names of area colleges that use a similar structure to the model proposed. Claire mentioned Cuesta and DeAnza College, but would provide more names to Letitia. Regarding Nancy’s question about placement of occupational programs, Claire is trying to remain open on that and agreed with David Balogh that discussion needs to take place.

David asked the Senators to discuss these issues with their constituencies. The criteria for the Forum will be the first order of business at the March 9 meeting.

VI. New Business

 A. UCSC Extension Course Offerings- Rock Pfotenhauer
      Rock mentioned the opportunities for growing enrollments by delivering courses to employers as was discussed at the previous Senate meeting on new students. He said that while there were opportunities to grow there were also threats to our enrollments. For a long time we have been the sole provider, but that is no longer the case. His presentation would focus on UCSC Extension and how it could siphon off some of our students.
Ø The extension courses are no longer focused on Silicon Valley alone, they now have the capacity and desire to serve the Santa Cruz area.
Ø UCSC has 50,000 extension students per year.
Ø UCSC extension is accredited by WASC, the same agency that accredits Cabrillo College.
Ø The cost of extension courses is no longer past the means of many of our students. For a significant percentage of our students the difference in cost between our classes and Extension classes is negligible. UC also offers financing for extension courses.
Ø Per the UCSC web site, there are now 73 extension courses being offered in Santa Cruz.
Ø Regarding student services, UC now has career counseling on site
Ø UC no longer offers occupational/professional development only; they now offer languages, biology, chemistry, gardening, etc.
Ø UC now offers an ECE program in its entirety.
Ø Cabrillo College instructors are teaching UC extension courses.

Rock stressed that these offerings would effect Cabrillo College enrollments. Rock proposed a “Center for Workforce Education and Economic Development”.  This center would develop market offerings to 1) Businesses, Organizations and Employers, 2) working professionals who wish to extend their education for advancement and 3) personal enrichment. Rock presented four hypothetical case studies to illustrate how CWEED could deliver services
1) e-Metering Systems- Cabrillo College could offer credit courses, contract courses, fee-based courses to meet needs for ESL instruction, management and worker training. 2) Fire Technology Training Program- with offerings by a third party. Cabrillo provides the credit, quality control and shares in the revenues from enrollment, 3) Career advancement for Individuals- an introduction to management and 4) Personal enrichment- could offer regular credit courses and charge for the use of the facilities. For economic development there are grants available from the Chancellors Office.

The CWEED organization could combine the Small Business Development Center, Community and Contract Education and new resources (2 new positions). The ongoing cost would be $194,000 with a one-time cost of $89,000. Rock projects that within 4 years the organization would be able to support itself on the revenues it would generate. The program would pay for operating expenses and one position in three years and the second position in four years.

Rock noted that there would be tremendous opportunities if Cabrillo College responds. David Balogh thanked Rock and asked the Senators to direct their questions directly to Rock.

 B. Manager’s Evaluations- Rosemary Brogan
      The taskforce administration on management evaluations had read Rosemary’s memo and provided feedback. Rosemary will provide each Senator with a hardcopy in their mailbox. Please write your suggestions on the hardcopy and return it to Rosemary.

 C. High School Students- Letitia
      Letitia asked that Senators email their responses regarding non-appropriate courses for high school students directly to her.

 D. Bookstore concerns regarding on-line texts
      Action item for the next agenda

IX. Items from the Floor

      1) Rosemary asked Rock what needs to be done to improve registration for short-term classes.
      2) Rory distributed the information regarding the proposed Committee of the Faculty Senate on Learner Outcomes (LOC). This will be an action item on the March 27 agenda.

X.   Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:06p.m.

FACULTY SENATE
DART FORUM
MINUTES
MARCH 13, 2001, Room 454

I.     Convened
       The forum convened at 3:00p.m.

II.   Introduction of DART Members
       The committee is comprised of: Claire Biancalana-Vice President of Instruction, David Balogh-President Elect Faculty Senate, Nancy A.Brown-Vice President Elect Faculty Senate, Claudia Close-Faculty Senate, Wanda Garner-Division Chair, Mary Cardenas-Division Chair, Gary Marcoccia-Director (CCFT), Linda Kitz-Director (CCFT), Ellen Stuck-Division Assistant, Margaret Pierce (replacing Becki diGregorio)-Program Specialist, Debbie Analauren-Facilitator.

        Claire introduced Trustee Katy Stonebloom

III.  Some Background
        Ellen, representing the classified staff, spoke of the high turnover in the positions and the need for an increase in compensation for the classifieds. Ellen noted the importance of cross training and the need for a stronger structure consisting of internal layers.

       Linda, representing the Directors (CCFT), spoke regarding the need for an increase in the compensation for the Directors and the need for uniformity in the workload. Linda noted that the APD’s are currently responsible for the daily running of the programs and pointed out that the duties that she had done as a Division Chair were the same duties that she now performs as a Director. Linda concurred with Ellen that the current “system is not adequate”. Linda would like accountability and compensation for workload. Linda joined DART to “improve the lot of the APD’s” and stressed that the “Lead Faculty” in the proposed model represents the current APD’s, and noted that every faculty member would have a lead faculty resulting in advocacy.

        Wanda, speaking on behalf of the DC’s, concurred with the issues mentioned. Wanda spoke of the current DC job being an administrative one, not a faculty one. With the increased responsibility and allocated time (195 days) there is not adequate time to meet students needs and to complete the workload. Wanda noted that with the current expansion, the increasing enrollments and the inclusion of an Intersession in the Academic Calendar, the need for an administrator is vital. If both the DC and DA are busy, then other resources are tapped, i.e.: the Vice President, etc. The basic operation of the Division also declines if the DA is sick or resigns, resulting in a decline of service to both faculty and students. As to why the current structure is simply not augmented with additional classified support, there is simply no funding to do so. One real benefit of the proposed model would be the broad structure of the classified support, which would prevent the Division Office from closing if both the DC and DA were out. The second benefit would be increased advocacy for faculty, adjunct faculty and departments.

        Claire stressed that the current discussion regarding a restructure had originated several years ago when she had been approached by the DC’s requesting changes in the current structure. Not only were the DC’s unhappy with the increasing workload and under compensation, but the APD’s and DA’s had also expressed those same concerns with overlapping job descriptions, the high turnover, too many direct reports and lack of compensation for the duties performed. Claire had met with the DC’s at that time and had looked at three proposed models. The first model proposed increasing the classified support, resulting in a $600,000.00 cost for nine Divisions. The second model was an instructional dean structure with an additional layer added and no classified relief. The third model increased the classified support and decreased the direct reports and would be close to cost neutral which is the current model being proposed.

        Claire stressed that the proposed model is the “best conceptual framework DART could come up with”. The forum is to allow the campus to define the jobs, to structure the relationships within the model and to allow everyone on campus to “have a voice”. Claire introduced Margaret Pierce who was appointed by the president of the union to replace Becki diGregorio.

IV.  Ground Rules

        Debbie, as facilitator of the forum, informed those present of the ground rules and opened the floor to questions.

V.    Questions from the Audience/Responses to Questions
         Note: italicized responses are from the DART committee

        1. Will the reorganization affect current CCFT and future CCFT salary negotiations?
        If the question is, will the reorganization reduce the size of the financial pie for current CCFT negotiation, the answer is no.  For the question about future negotiations, issues around reassigned time for faculty leads (academic program directors) will effect negotiations with the current and proposed structure.

        2. Will retreating DC’s displace adjunct faculty?
       Yes.  Every time contract faculty are hired, adjunct are displaced and the 75:25 ratio is improved.  Adjunct faculty have their rights spelled out in the CCFT contract.

        3. Are there specific colleges who use this model that we can reference to see how the issues                   of workload, autonomy, authority and delegation are addressed?
       Yes.  DART reviewed 12 college organizational charts.  Colleges using the dean structure are Fullerton, San Diego Mesa, Mira Costa, Las Positas, Los Angeles Pierce, Cuesta, and Shasta.  Other colleges reviewed by the consultant include Antelope Valley, Chaffey, Ohlone, Palomar, Rio Hondo, Sierra, and Yuba.

4. Which CC in California use 5 Divisions headed by Deans, and are they similar in size to us?
Two college which I believe have similar organizational structures are San Mateo and Mira Costa.

        5. History and background of consultant and continued role?
       The consultant was Bill Ewing who has worked with 41 of the 73 community college districts in our state.  In addition, he has worked previously for Cabrillo, including the recent restructuring in Student Services.  Bill is presently working on the temporary reclassification of division assistants for 2001-02.

       Manuel informed the forum that Bill Ewing had worked with Student Services in their restructuring. Wanda noted that it had been Bill’s suggestion to reduce the direct reports to 5. David reiterated that the proposed model would not work without the support of the faculty.

       6. Could we get specific figures and costs for the personnel changes?
       It is impossible to identify the costs of the personnel changes since the classifications in the proposed organization have not been determined.  The closest we can get is through a careful analysis of costs between the existing structure and the proposed model using the existing salary schedules. An analysis was done based on 1 division chair, 1 division assistant, 1 program specialist vs. 1 dean, 1 administrative assistant, 1 fiscal analyst, and 3 program specialists, assuming moving from 9 to 5 divisions. This analysis showed that the cost of the proposed model is slightly less than the cost of the existing model.  Further, the president of college has directed that this reorganization be as nearly revenue neutral as possible.  Currently, through the classification and negotiation processes, the staff and faculty unions are advocating for increases in the number and pay rate of positions.  The College Planning Council discusses all non-negotiated budget items.  The reorganization was an information item at the March 7 meeting of the CPC.  I am working on the specific cost of the existing structure and will send that out at a later date.

        Debbie advised the faculty to get to know their CPC representative.

7. What criteria will be used for division realignments and who will decide on the criteria?
       The criteria have not been determined as yet.  They will be developed through a collaborative process.  Other colleges had used the following criteria: similarity of program goals, related curriculum, potential for shared facilities, similar administrative support needs, programs, students, facilities, faculty, staff, specialized facilities, distinct instructional programs, special programs, extra-curricular activities, programs without full time faculty, potential for new programs

        Terry Fetterman remarked that the Faculty Senate and the Faculty would do this. Claire stated that the criteria would be agreed upon by the college.

        David Balogh suggested that faculty consider what departments they would like to placed with. Shirley recommended a discussion amongst the constituencies within each department as to placement. Shawn Houghton suggested inviting Bill Ewing for suggestions regarding placement of departments. Rory noted that the discussion had been helpful, but a discussion of the criteria would be needed per Claire’s suggestion. Claire suggested that faculty consult the catalog to ascertain where departments are located and in what Divisions.

        8. Do classified staff need to reapply for new classified positions or will lateral transfers be in place?
       The procedures in the SEIU contract will be followed.

        Ellen remarked that with more positions available, classifieds could decide as to where they would like to apply. In response to Maia’s question, Claire replied that SEIU has not yet discussed job descriptions but would like an increase in the number of classifieds.

       9. What happens to classified staff who don’t get the new jobs?
       The procedures in the SEIU contract will be followed.

       10. What will the new pay scale be for the new support staff?
       The procedures in the SEIU contract will be followed.

       11. How will the Dean be protected as an advocate for the faculty?
       The success of the dean will be dependent upon the success of the program.  The management evaluation process is being reworked to include input from those within the area of responsibility of the dean. If there is a problem with a dean, s/he will go through the same review process as any Cabrillo employee.

        Wanda stressed that a Dean hired from out of the college would not have tenure, as it should not be an issue for an administrator.

VI.  Pilot Program
        Claire informed the Senate that Jack Stevens will be retiring as Division Chair of Social Science next year and will be returning to the classroom. Jack’s retirement provided an opportunity for a pilot program and the HAS Division had agreed to combine with the Social Sciences Division for one year. The other option had been to hire an interim chair for the Social Science Division.

        The pilot provides an opportunity to refine the structure, and a transition team has been put together to discuss the pilot and the modeling of the workstations. The classified support for the pilot will be simulated; Claire has spoken with Kathy Abma regarding this. The interim job descriptions will also be for the one-year duration of the pilot program. The office space is currently being considered with Mike Maas as to where the new faculty offices will be located in the 400 Building and the concept of “hiding the DA’s office” is also in the works.

        Wanda noted that A&R would still function in a similar capacity, except that the interaction would be with a Dean and not with a DC.

VII. Closing
        David remarked that the faculty had been happy with the status quo, as they had been unaware of the inadequacies in the workloads of the DC’s, APD’s and DA’s. The committees will be reconstituted after the restructure.

        Faculty Senate will meet at the regularly scheduled time in two weeks.

        Claire thanked those present at the forum and stated that DART will assimilate the information from today’s deliberations at the next DART meeting. Future forums will be scheduled predicated upon the need.

        Joanne Wylie expressed her thanks to those present for listening to the issues and appreciating how much work the DC’s and staff support really do.

Adjourned: The forum was adjourned at 4:50p.m.

FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES: MARCH 27, 2001
3:00p.m. To 5:00p.m., Room 1804

Present:       David Balogh, Nancy Brown, Steve Hodges, Steve Cox, Marcy Alancraig, Letitia Scott-Curtis, Lisa Feintech, Claudia Close, Helene Jara, Eric Carter, Topsy Smalley, Chuck Smith, Joseph Ribeiro, Rory O’Brien, Donna Mekis, Mary Ellen Sullivan, Belita Magee, Elizabeth Curtis

Absent:        Jay Siskin, Robin McFarland, Micki Witzig, David Sullivan, Nick Roberts

Guests:        Bill Brown-Accreditation, Mike Mills-Accreditation, Gary Nitta-Accreditation, Rosemary Brogan, Bette Hirsch, Claire Biancalana, Dale Attias

I.       Call to Order
         The meeting was called to order at 3:03p.m. The Senators introduced themselves to the visiting members of the Accreditation team.

II.      Minutes
         Marcy moved to approve the minutes of February 27, 2001 and March 13, 2001. Chuck seconded the motion. The motion to approve was passed.

III.    Reports
     A.Facilities Advisory Committee: Steve Cox
         Steve distributed a copy of the Facilities Master Plan Status Report and noted that the report format lists the projects in terms of status and timeline.
     B. CIP: Claudia Close
         CIP reviewed all the program plans. The mentor program had been implemented (readers from CIP were assigned to each plan). CIP clarified prioritization to be project based. The department plans will be up for review every five years.
     C. Distance Education: Letitia Scott-Curtis
          A transfer degree is currently being worked on for future implementation. Letitia remarked that this is an exciting event.
     D. Technology Seminar: David Balogh
          More than the originally stipulated 2 faculty will be able to attend. Francine Van Meter is working out the details.
     E. Great Teachers Seminar: David Balogh
          No brochure of dates has been received yet. David asked Senators to seek prospective participants; need 2 faculty members to attend. Per Lisa Feintech, Gabby Rodriguez has displayed strong interest and would like to be considered as one of the candidates.
     F. Beach Camp for Professors: David Balogh
         The camp will be held from June 4 to June 8. Please contact David for more information.
     G. Student Scholarships: David Balogh
          David has received a letter from the Foundation stating that “a little over $1,000.00 is available to give scholarships to prospective teachers”. David queried the Senators if this was a policy they would like to continue. The Senators were in agreement to give 2 (two) $500.00 scholarships. Rosemary mentioned an on campus club with a membership of 35 students who have expressed an interest in teaching. The Senators requested more information about this club.

IV.    Action
     A. Committee Assignments: Nancy Brown
          1) UC Dual Admissions Proposal: Please read the handout from the University of  California for discussion at our next meeting.
     2) 50% Law Task Force: Please read the handout from Chancellor Nussbaum for discussion at our next meeting.
          3) DART: Nancy distributed a list of the number of faculty by department from Fall 2000. Nancy noted that this information would be beneficial when the faculty are asked to place the departments within the proposed reorganization.
          4) Disaster Committee: David Balogh informed the Senate that the committee is looking for volunteers.
     B. Campus Cruiser Vote: David Balogh
          David asked for a motion to discuss this issue. Steve Hodges moved to accept Campus Cruiser. Nancy seconded the motion. David noted that the advertising will remain, but any offensive advertisements can be removed by request. Claire remarked that the advertisements would not appear on our servers.

David asked the Senators for a hand vote to accept Campus Cruiser: 11 ayes, 2 nays and 4 abstained. The ayes carried.

     C. Shall new Senators “inherit” committee assignments?: David Balogh
          David asked the Senators for a motion on this issue. There was no one who moved the inheritance proposal.

     D. Mapping ED 80: Rosemary Brogan
          Rosemary distributed a memo dated February 27, 2001 regarding mapping the proposed new education course and establishing minimum qualifications. The memo asked for equivalency criteria, looking for a broader range in Social Science and requiring teachers to have both practical and theoretical knowledge. The grant is in partnership with surrounding community colleges and transfer 4-year universities. Rosemary asked the Senators for their help in this matter. Dale stated that ED had been changed to EDUC at the Curriculum Committee; the change was noted.

         Steve Hodges moved that teaching eligibility for the course, American Education in a Changing World be mapped to the following disciplines: Masters in Philosophy, Psychology, Early Childhood Education, History, Social Science and Humanities. Marcy seconded the motion. In an addendum to the vote, Rosemary added Sociology. Steve Hodges and Marcy both accepted the addendum.

          Nancy expressed concern regarding specification needed in the differences between “mapping” and “equivalency”. John Nixon remarked that Santa Ana College uses the term “discipline equivalency” instead of “mapping” but it means the same thing. Claire suggested establishing a local qualification. The wording on the memo “teaching at the Elementary or High School Level or teaching experience at Elementary or High School level.” will be deleted and replaced with “K through 12 credential or equivalent eligibility” to read “Eligibility to teach the class could also be a Masters in any discipline with accompanying Education classes for K through 12 credential or equivalent eligibility.” Steve Hodges moved to approve revised mapping. Marcy seconded the motion. The motion was carried.
     E. Curriculum: Claudia Close
         The Curriculum Committee has met three times this semester; with the addition workload of the Curriculum Book, the addendum and the 2 e-mail votes, it was equivalent to 5 meetings. Claudia remarked that a “monumental amount of curriculum” had been reviewed and there will be no more e-mail votes this semester. Claudia praised Dale Attias for all her work on Curriculum and informed the Senate that Dale Attias and John Mauceri had developed proprietary software for Cabrillo College; faculty are able to make changes easily resulting in more curriculum and also allows the Curriculum Committee to become more flexible.

         Chuck moved to approve the curriculum. Topsy seconded the motion. The motion to approve was passed unanimously.

V.     Old Business
     A DART
         David Balogh informed the Senate that the DART Minutes would be available for review in the Library on April 2, 2001. David felt the forums had gone well and DART will continue to present ideas and discussion in a forum setting. David asked the Senators if they were comfortable with the forums and noted that he was reticent to continue the forums during Faculty Senate time. David asked the Senate for permission for he and Nancy A. Brown to make decisions regarding the scheduling of future forums. All agreed. Joseph requested that the forums not be held on Friday’s.

David opened the floor for discussion. Joseph remarked that the overheads were primitive and would like a more professional presentation. Marcy expressed the concerns of the English Division in making a commitment with questions still unanswered regarding the classifieds, and proceeding before negotiations. Letitia recommended appointing a union representative to DART. Nancy replied that SEIU is represented; Claire stated that CCFT is also represented by the APD’s. Marcy would like union representatives as well as Director representatives. David remarked that it was a good suggestion.

         Nancy expressed her concern with the numbers that Claire had computed regarding the restructure and the exclusion of reassigned time in that computation. Nancy did not feel the model could be cost neutral. Claire replied that every year when CCFT negotiates the increases of reassign time and the reduction of 9 DC structure to a 5 Dean structure will result in reassign time from the DC’s, the money will be the same, but Claire is not sure yet if it will be sufficient. Nancy remarked that SEIU is uncomfortable with the current plan if the classified numbers are increased, then so will the cost; according to Ellen’s calculations, by approximately $400,000. Nancy stressed that a 9 Division Dean structure could not be maintained if the DC’s and DA’s no longer want the job.

         Nancy remarked that if the Senators were to accept the proposed restructure the next step would be to determine the criteria. Nancy suggested that two divisions could combine into one as a possibility in the restructure. Claire remarked that some criteria for divisions to align would be similarity of size, number of contract faculty and similarity of curriculum, prerequisites, skills for labor market, etc. David informed the Senators that DART would come up with the criteria, which would be distributed to the campus and discussed at an open forum. Marcy expressed her concern that the SEIU concern had still not been answered and would like assurances that the “marriage with the classifieds” would still be preserved after the “break up” with the DC’s. Claire noted that one of the criteria would be to preserve relationships; the criteria are not set in stone and will be open to discussion at the next forum to provide a basis for the realignment. Donna and the Counselors concurred with Marcy’s statement that the restructure should not progress without the information that would be obtained from negotiations. Rosemary stated that she is for and against the restructure, but fear of change is common and it is time to explore new options. Rosemary would like less talk and more action and would like to know where her department will be placed and suggested “maybe HPERD”. Rosemary stated the point of the pilot program is to explore these possibilities.

         Joseph requested more information and clarification regarding the numbers of the restructure. Claire clarified that her calculations took the lowest rate for all across the board, but the math would also work at the highest rate. David stated that in 30 years he has as yet to see anything that did not result in a cost, and if the issue of the classifieds had been addressed a number of year ago, it would be closer to cost neutral now. Claire noted that the class ranges have not been decided yet, but the present ranges are high. Comparisons will be done across the state to determine whether the high ranges are appropriate.

         Claudia questioned if the title “Dean” was essential, and that the jobs need to be rescaled. Marcy concurred and requested more information on the pilot program. Claire noted this issue would be discussed at DART. Topsy suggested that the concept of the current three Deans could be applied in the new model.

          David Balogh summarized the concerns expressed at the meeting, 1) add a SEIU/CCFT representation to DART, 2) flush out the division alignments, 3) continue with the forums and 4) address the “Dean” title issue. David asked the Senators if they would like any other responsibilities in the process of the reorganization.

          Rosemary suggested that even though concerns exist, people need to work together on “how to make 5 areas a happy place for teachers to work”. Claire felt troubled by the suggestion to wait for classified negotiations to take place and felt it was not right to demand answers from SEIU. Marcy remarked that SEIU was speaking not from fear or unwillingness to try change, but from the viewpoint of wanting to be listened to. Donna suggested the campus vote on whether or not to proceed with the restructure. Nancy clarified that the restructure is the prerogative of Instruction, but disagreement may be noted on the board agenda item. David Balogh remarked that the Senators are responsible for communicating with their constituencies for census on the proceedings.

Dale Attias informed the Senate that she had been part of the VAPA merge, which was done without open discussion. Dale remarked that to “not fear change” and the need for flexibility and forward momentum is important. David stated that it would be “a grave mistake not to play”. Steve Hodges concurred and stated that his department currently uses a similar structure to the proposed model with great success and feels this proposal is “a step forward”. Nancy noted that the transition team is working on the pilot program. One current problem of the plan is in relation to facilities and it’s future movement; the dean restructure was done prior to implementation of the facilities plan. Nancy felt the team had put a lot of effort into the pilot program and felt it should run for a longer duration. Claire disagreed. Social Science had the choice of which division to merge with and Nancy felt this option should be open to everyone. Regarding Joseph’s concern with the restructure combining division faculty’s number of units, Claire responded that would be the responsibility of each faculty to prevent that. Claudia stressed the importance of having clear criteria when discussing the division realignments.

         David will place this topic as an “old business” agenda item and recommended that Senators discuss this issue with their constituencies.

     B. Texts On Line
         Steve Hodges distributed a copy of his proposal concerning the issue of faculty ordering texts online and receiving departmental money from the company in return for the purchases. Steve asked for a motion to approve the proposal, which includes full disclosure, and a guarantee that the money would go into the department and not to individual faculty members. Steve remarked that this issue has been pending since November of 2000.

         As to lack of representation by the bookstore, David Balogh observed that he had spoken twice with Susan Lonnblad but had not received the requested documentation. Letitia noted that faculty she had discussed this issue with had been opposed to the bookstore and Letitia felt the Senate should proceed with a vote. Mary Ellen stipulated that students be informed that they would be unable to return books purchased online and Chuck remarked that those online books are not necessarily cheaper.

         Elizabeth Curtis informed the Senate that the campus bookstore provides $10,000.00 annually to the Student Senate. As to Letitia’s concern that the Student Senate would lose that funding if bookstore revenue were to go down, Elizabeth believes the amount is fixed. BigWords.com is also an option for students to search the Internet for the cheapest books. Chuck remarked that students are aware of their options concerning purchasing books, but the proposal is not about serving the students but about raising money for the departments. Chuck felt there should be no specific company names used in the proposal. David Balogh questioned if students would feel obligated to purchase books from companies listed in faculty syllabi. Claudia concurred.

Steve moved to approve the proposal as written. There was no second to the motion. The motion died for lack of a second.

VI.    New Business
    A  High School Students: Letitia
         Letitia has received a copy of appropriate courses for concurrent high school students. The issue has been taken care of.

    B. High School Articulation Council: Bette Hirsch
         Bette reminded the Senators that the issue of under prepared students had been discussed previously and that students with deficiencies are less likely to transfer. The College Preparedness Task Force has been addressing this issue; Bette distributed a copy of the minutes.

         Bette remarked that at orientations for 9th graders a statement is provided, via overhead, from four-year institutions regarding prerequisites for entrance. In response, the task force has drafted a statement, from Cabrillo College to be shown at those same orientations. This draft was patterned after UC and CSU. Bette requested input from the Senate regarding the draft language; this would be shown to parents and students. Bette suggested including a statement regarding the importance of taking Math during the Senior Year and noting that those students who did so had a better success rate in college. Bette added that high school students should be aware that if they planned to transfer to a 4-year school in 2 years, they needed to take 15 units a semester.

         Helene suggested changing the language as most students work full time and would be unable to complete a degree in two years, and include a paragraph stating that taking longer than two years to complete is acceptable. Nancy felt it would be condescending to include the language that 16 units would be completed in two years, as though the students were incapable of calculating 60 divided by 4. Donna noted the myth amongst students that  doing minimum work in high school can be made up and still complete Cabrillo in 2 years! Donna noted the instance of a 16-year old that had dropped out of high school and felt he could attend Cabrillo College to transfer to Berkley. Elizabeth remarked that if he had dropped out of high school he would not have received the information in the draft and that she, as a student, would be discouraged to read this information. Eric suggested including guaranteed transfer in the language. Belita recommended addressing the draft to both full-time and part-time students. Bette concurred; two pathways could be drawn up to address the whole school population. Lisa found the language to be daunting. Bette remarked that the language must address this issue as serious.

VII.  Reports Continued
         There were no more reports.

VIII. Agenda Building
         1) Dual admission
         2) 50% Law
         3) DART
         4) College Preparedness Task Force Draft

IX.    Items from the Floor
         David Balogh informed the Senate that CPC had looked at the goals and objectives for the college. David and Nancy felt it would be appropriate for Faculty Senate to discuss the issues before the CPC discussion as some of the goals are unobtainable, for example, dropping students parking by 15% over 4 years.  As well as the 4-year plan to obtain the 75/25 ratio by 2004; with the current plan there would be an unrealistic 6% increase needed within the last year.

         Nancy had worked on the Master Plan Draft Committee and had found the completed document to be totally different after review by the Vice-Presidents. David Balogh remarked that budgets determine objectives and one way to help “force” funding is to make it an objective. Nancy remarked that items were added without the input of the Faculty Senate. David Balogh, Nancy A. Brown and Debra Bone are the representatives on CPC. Topsy remarked that if the Master Plan should come through the Senate then it would be an academic and professional matter. The Senate concurred. David Balogh will address this issue at tomorrow’s CPC meeting.

         David Balogh will look into booking the Sesnon House for all future Senate meetings.

X.     Adjourned
         The meeting was adjourned at 5:00p.m.

FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES: APRIL 17, 2001
3:00p.m. To 5:00p.m., Room 111

Present:       David Balogh, Lisa Feintech, Topsy Smalley, Jay Siskin, Eric Carter, Marcy Alancraig, Claudia Close, Chuck Smith, David Sullivan, Steve Cox, Helene Jara, Letitia Scott-Curtis, Belita Magee, Steve Hodges, Joseph Ribeiro, Donna Mekis, Mary Ellen Sullivan, Rory O’Brien, Robin McFarland, Elizabeth Curtis

Absent:        Nancy A Brown, Micki Witzig, Nick Roberts

Guests:        Claire Biancalana, Bette Hirsch, Rebecca Arnesty

Staff:            Bronze Freeman

I.    Call to Order
      The meeting was called to order at 3:00p.m. David informed the Senators that Elizabeth, the Student Senator, could be reached through Billie Paul or through the Student Senate Web Site. Elizabeth will be the Student Senate representative for this year and possibly next year.

II.   Minutes
      Claudia moved to approve the March 27, 2001 minutes. David Sullivan seconded the motion. The minutes were adopted.

III. Reports
  A. CIP: Claudia informed the Senators that CIP had met last week to vote on the priorities for the projects. CIP voted using 1low through 6high, with one-third 5,6, one-third 3,4 and one-third 1,2. CIP will meet again on April 27, 2001 to discuss the results of the vote.

      David Balogh asked for a Senate volunteer to serve on CIP next year to replace Lisa McAndrews, who currently serves on CIP. Chuck volunteered and joked he only would do so if Claudia remained on the committee. Marcy moved to accept Chuck as the Faculty Senate representative on CIP for next year. Claudia seconded the motion. The motion was approved.

IV. Action
      SCC: David Balogh informed the Senators that he, Nancy A Brown and Topsy will be attending the Faculty Senate meeting in San Francisco and will be unavailable until next week.

V.  Old Business
  A. DART: David advised the Senators to complete the survey concerning division realignment, which was sent out as part of the April 16 Instruction Note; listed are 5 suggested criteria to be used when completing the survey. David recommended that all the Senators complete the survey and inform their constituencies to do so as well. The results of the survey will be distributed to both DART and the Faculty Senate. David stressed the need for honesty when completing the survey and for those who are uncomfortable completing the “incompatible” section, that section may be left blank. David again stressed the importance of faculty completing the survey and the need for incorporating the suggested criteria and taking facilities into account when faculty completes the survey. The survey is available until Noon, Friday, April 20, 2001 and can be accessed at http://websurveyor.net/wsb.dll/5601/ccde.htm. Claire noted 44 completed surveys have been received so far.

      David Balogh asked the Senators for the input received from their constituencies regarding the proposed restructure. According to Steve Hodges, the response from BCS has been “calm and receptive”. Robin relayed BECHO’s main concerns, 1) the role of Lead Faculty, 2) Lead Faculty reassigned time, 3) the questions that have not yet been answered and 4) the responsibility and authority (reporting, support) in the model. In response to BECHO’s concerns, David Balogh replied that he saw groups of departments combining into a unit (the numbers will vary), the reassign time will be predicated upon the job and David suggested it to be no more than ½ load. Different possibilities would exist as far as support for the Lead Faculty. Claire stressed that reassign time would be determined through negotiations with CCFT. In response to Eric’s question regarding what would happen to the reassign time for those who currently have more than ½ load, per David, it is still an unknown.

      Lisa remarked that Nancy Fetterman is the lead faculty in MSE. David noted the proposed structure does not differ that much from the existing structure. In the proposed 5 Dean Model, all faculty would have a Lead Faculty to report to prevent an overload of work on the Dean. Robin felt that with the current rotation of the department chairs in BECHO with no release time, it would be advantageous if in the new model the person had the knowledge as well as adequate compensation. In response to Steve Cox’s concern regarding the role of the athletic director in the new model, Claire replied that his current job would remain unchanged in the new model.

      Jay remarked that FLAC’s concern was with how the division would be organized in the new structure and the resulting consequences. David Balogh maintained the importance for communication amongst the faculty. Topsy noted the exclusion of the Library in the survey as the Library supports all departments. Regarding the English Division, Marcy remarked that there had been no second meeting so far, but the thoughts remain. Marcy informed the Senators that last year an interdisciplinary committee had met to make recommendations and had turned those recommendations over to negotiations. Marcy felt if something similar was done, then fear might be assuaged. Claire replied that the division realignment is not a negotiable item, but a forum will be held on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 to discuss this issue, and for DART to receive input from the campus regarding the realignment. CCFT would negotiate the Lead Faculty (reassign time, job descriptions, etc.).  Classified issues will be negotiated by SEIU. Claire used the schedule as an example to answer the question on delegated responsibility. Claire is responsible for the schedule and delegates it to the DC’s or Deans who would delegate it to the Lead Faculty. The Deans and Lead Faculty would project the courses, numbers of sections and times. The Lead Faculty and the Division Coordinator create the rest of the schedule. David remarked that the Dean will have assistance in the office and noted the current lack of classified assistance in the Divisions.

David asked the Senators to find out from their constituencies how much work they managed to do over Spring Break without the interruptions.

      Belita questioned if the proposed model was the only option. David replied that DART had done a lot of work assessing the best model possible, and this model will be the one looked at. This model will increase the assistance in the divisions remaining. According to David Balogh, most of his contacts had informed him that they would prefer to not be separated from the people they currently work with. When polled, the majority of the Senators also agreed with this. For example, David suggested combining Social Science and HAS to see “if critical mass is attained and fission results”. David Sullivan noted Dance’s request to be placed in VAPA. David Balogh suggested a possible combining of VAPA and HPERD as they’re on the same side of campus as an example of a geographic model, and noted the importance of considering facilities in the deliberations. David felt people would be more comfortable if the groupings could remain almost the same. Claire and David agreed on the need for Divisions to know groupings before summer.

      Claudia questioned if the model is a “done deal” and why the “Dean” could not be translated into a “DC”.  The point of the Dean is to get a year round position; the idea of extending the DC into a 12 month contract had not been talked through. Claire is not opposed to a title change. Claudia felt in the new model the scope of the proposed Dean would be greater, but the workload would be less and the cost would be more. Claire respected what Claudia said but did not agree. The Lead Faculty are primarily in the classroom teaching and the scope and responsibilities would be increased for the Dean. Claudia felt the faculty fear of a Dean (professional administrator) was being written into the structure and felt an increase of scope would be against the point of the model. Claudia referred to Wanda who has stated that the current workload of the DC’s is too great for the position. Claire remarked that there would be no cost saving over the Dean in moving the DC salary from 195 days to 225 days. As far as the faculty fear of a professional administrator, Claire noted the competency of many administrators including herself, John Hurd and the existing Deans. If a competent administrator is hired, then no problem exists. Lisa remarked that the Dean would not be tenured and Wanda’s position is currently not that of an administrator but her duties are, and even the college President’s position requires classroom experience. David Balogh remarked that the current DC’s are administrators and to be able to afford the number of support people needed, the number of offices would have to be reduced.

      David Balogh remarked that the current structure has been locked into the present position for many years and suggested that departments have the option of reassessing which Division they would like to be placed with. David noted the faculty loyalty to the Division that had hired them. In response to Topsy’s question as to how the Dean would effect the evaluation policy, David Balogh replied that evaluation would still be by peer review. The Dean would not necessarily chair the committee. Claire informed the Senate that the need to negotiate the evaluation article had been discussed at CCFT and will be looked at by representatives from the Faculty Senate, the administrators and CCFT. In Claire’s opinion the Dean should not evaluate the Tenured Faculty unless a problem occurs. David Balogh stressed the importance of the Senators and their constituencies attending the forum on Tuesday, April 24 in Room 454 from 3:00p.m. to 5:00p.m. David and Claire will work on the agenda. One issue on the agenda will be whether or not the campus agrees to the 5 proposed criteria for division realignment. Claudia remarked that Nancy was against fixed criteria. Claire felt Nancy had been more concerned with a vote taking place at the forum on the alignment of the divisions, than the criteria, which will be open for discussion. Claire informed the Senate that the survey results would be available at the forum and asked if the Senators were comfortable with DART handling the input regarding the division realignment. Claudia was in favor of specific criteria and objective opinions. David Balogh remarked that he was happy with the decision of HAS and Social Science to combine. Rory noted concerns of people in those two divisions over the dynamics. Rory questioned if the pilot program would be able to participate in the restructure.

  B. The 50% Law: Nancy was not present to discuss this issue. David Balogh remarked on the Academic Senate Alert regarding the results of what had happened at Santa Monica; the schools are not following the letter of the 50% Law. Claire remarked that the directive was unclear from the Chancellor’s Office. One concern is that the reassign time for DC’s, APD’s, special projects and curriculum development, even though it “is on the wrong side”, AB1725 stipulates the need for reassigned time for faculty to participate in shared governance. David remarked that one option would be to give stipends to the Lead Faculty to keep to the 50% Law.

 C. Dual Admission Policy: Donna informed the Senate that the policy would be voted upon this week. Donna had been asked by John Hurd and Manual Osorio to write a response to the UC Dual Admissions Proposal. Donna distributed a copy of the Transfer Center and Counseling Divisions response to the proposal. Donna provided the Senators with a brief history of the proposal, which targets high school seniors ineligible to transfer to UC directly from high school. John Hurd took a copy of this proposal to the CEO conference to be voted upon.

The response from the Transfer Center and the Counseling Division to the proposal enumerated many reasons why Cabrillo College could not support this, including the lack of student interest, the categorization of students as “Dual Enrollment Students” and the $40.00 fee students could lose if they chose to attend a college other than the UC school that they had contracted with.

      When asked why the Chancellor’s Office would support this proposal, Donna replied that the Chancellor’s Office believes the funding would go to the counselors and the more highly prepared students.

      Donna informed David Balogh that he would be asked to vote on this issue at the upcoming SCC Conference. Donna noted the unanimous decision from Counseling to reject this as proposed. In response to David’s query as to how he should vote, the Senate was unanimous for David to vote against the UC Dual Admissions Proposal as proposed.

  D. College Preparedness Task Force: Bette Hirsch distributed the new draft inclusive of the Faculty Senate suggestions. The draft focuses on 9th Graders and has a “strong” layout to impart the importance of the information. Bette asked the Senators to review the draft and e-mail any responses directly to her.

VI. New Business
 A. Distance Education Committee’s Mission Statement and Action Plan: Bette Hirsch distributed a copy detailing the components of the committee and noted the strong representation on the committee, including David Warren and Francine who have taken leadership roles in Distance Education. The committee is in accordance with the Master Plan.

      Bette remarked upon the Accreditation Teams suggestion for Cabrillo College to find students using distance education. The response to that can be found in goal 1.3 on the handout. Bette would like any input from the Faculty Senate regarding the committee. Mary Ellen noted the exclusion of a counselor on the committee and would like specifically to include a representative with experience. Bette agreed to the specificity. David asked the Senators for agreement to include the Articulation Officer in the membership. The Senate concurred. Claudia informed Bette that she had not been notified of her inclusion on the committee. Bette apologized and stated that the appropriate notifications had been sent out. In response to Elizabeth’s question of Student Senate representation, Bette replied that no Student Senator had been present at the last few meetings but attendance would be welcome.

David Balogh asked the Senate for representatives to serve on the committee. Anyone interested may contact Nancy A. Brown.

  B. General Work Experience/ C. Work Based Learning: Rebecca Arnesty
      Rebecca distributed a packet of information including: a summary of projects completed by the Work Based Learning Resource Center, new curriculum descriptions of Career and General Work Experience Education, a student career and job skill survey, and WBLRC web pages.  301 faculty surveys distributed during spring division meetings showed that 42% have student’s currently interfacing with business, industry and the community, 17% have referred students to internships, and 34% referred students to jobs. 18% of the surveys were from occupational faculty.   Rebecca was excited about these findings. The faculty who participated were asked to administer a career and job skill development survey to their students; 1400 students participated.  Jing currently has the data from that survey. Rebecca obtained the numbers from Jing of at least 10 classrooms (20%).  The preliminary data shows ¾ of the students have jobs, 70% are in jobs not related to their field of study, and 78% would be interested in obtaining a job that relates to their field of study. Rebecca noted most students do use career planning and the transfer students use more of the resources available than the vocational students do. There will be more definitive results available soon. Rebecca has received over 200 positive responses from students to willing to participate in Work Based Learning; a workshop will be held on April 18 and 19.

      Four Cabrillo programs currently working to integrate work- based learning into their curriculum are Culinary Arts, Fast Track, Engineering Technology and Nursing. They are each developing WBL curriculum models.  The WBLRC will be looking for 4 new programs to participate in 2001-2002; a 3-unit stipend is available for each program that participates.

A web site exits, http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/affiliate/worklearn/ but the links are not open yet.
      Rebecca provided the Senators with a look at the web site that was created by Andrea Nguyen, a marketing consultant hired by the program. Topsy Smalley contributed in the creation of the WBL Briefing Book and Cooperative Work Experience Education links on the web site. Rebecca informed the Senate of 2 WBL programs that are featured on the web site: 1) Educators in Industry and 2) Cooperative Work Experience.  This summer 5 Educator In Industry teams will be visiting industry and business sites; summer participants will include high school, middle school, adult ed. and community college faculty. The teams will be lead by Cabrillo faculty and staff, including Eric Carter and John Hurd. The Fall Educators In Industry flex week activity will be on August 28 from 9-12 with a luncheon following the site visits.  There will be 10-12 team’s lead by Cabrillo faculty team leaders, including Senators David Sullivan and Joseph Ribeiro.  The information about the specific teams and where to sign up will be available in one week.  Rebecca asked the Senators to encourage their colleagues to sign up.

New curriculum recently approved by our Curriculum Committee allows students to enroll in General Work Experience (LIBR 199G). General Work Experience students can explore career opportunities by participating in internships. The students are responsible for obtaining their own internships for college credit, but credit is available. There are rigorous standards to be met in obtaining that credit. Donna noted the 99G classes are transferable to state colleges but not UCSC. Service Learning would be another option for students to obtain credit; Rebecca cited Mo Hassan’s student’s work with Ocean Chevrolet in which they co-enrolled in Cooperative Work Experience.
 
 
 
 

  D. Transportation Management Plan: Cliff Nichols
       As Cliff was absent, this will placed on the next agenda under New Business.

VII. Reports Continued
       There were no more reports.

VIII. Agenda Building
         David Balogh informed the Senate that the Sesnon House would not be available until the end of the semester for Faculty Senate use. David received permission from the Senate to book all future meetings in the Sesnon House.

         1) DART
         2) Report on SCC- Topsy, David and Nancy. Topsy will be leading a break out session at the conference.
         3) Transportation Management Plan- Cliff Nichols.

IX.   Items from the Floor
        Marcy informed the Senate that applications for the Learner Outcomes Institute are due on Friday, April 20, 2001. Claire would like to send two people from the hard sciences.

        Nancy had sent out an e-mail regarding the IMPACT conference at the end of the month, please read it. Mary Ellen stated an e-mail had been sent to the DC’s regarding this with a request to impart this information to their faculty. David Balogh felt this to be a worthy cause.

X.    Adjournment
        The meeting was adjourned at 4:55p.m.

FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES: MAY 1, 2001
3:00p.m. To 5:00p.m. Room 111

Present:       David Balogh, Nancy A. Brown, Topsy Smalley, Eric Carter, Robin McFarland, Lisa Feintech, Belita Magee, Mary Ellen Sullivan, Steve Hodges, Letitia Scott-Curtis, Joseph Ribeiro, Jay Siskin, Helene Jara, David Sullivan, Marcy Alancraig, Donna Mekis, Rory O’Brien, Nick Roberts, Elizabeth Curtis

Absent:        Steve Cox, Chuck Smith, Claudia Close

Guests:        Claire Biancalana, Francine Van Meter, Jo-Ann Panzardi

Staff:           Bronze Freeman

I.       Call to Order
         The meeting was called to order at 3:06p.m. The next meeting on May 15, 2001 will be held in Room 1804.

II.     Minutes
         Correction on Page 2 of the April 17, 2001 Minutes. Replace “MSE” with “Math” to read “Lisa remarked that Nancy Fetterman is the lead faculty in Math”. Marcy moved to approve the corrected minutes. David Sullivan seconded the motion. The minutes were adopted as corrected.

III.    Reports
    A. Fall 2001 Flex Calendar: Francine distributed copies of the incomplete (only Monday through Wednesday) Fall 2001 Flex Calendar. The Calendar is pending Senate approval and is due to be posted on the Cabrillo College Web Site during the meeting. Francine will proceed with posting the Calendar unless there are corrections needed. Francine praised the Staff Development Committee for speaking with faculty regarding attending the workshops. Francine noted the many interesting curriculum development workshops available. Francine thanked faculty who had donated gifts to her favorite event, the Classified Retreat, Camp Cabrillo. Faculty may still donate to the event by proving a gift, or a check to purchase gifts, to the Staff Development Committee. There will be no Friday softball game, but John Hurd will be hosting a lunch in the quad on All College Day.

    B.  Childcare Providers: Letitia informed the Senators of the workout for childcare providers. Childcare providers are going to Sacramento to protest the “lousy salaries” they receive. This issue affects everyone.

    C.  CIP: Topsy distributed copies of the CIP “Priorities from Instructional Plans Completed in 2001”. Program review takes place every 5 years. The top 1/3 of the ranked items were presented to Faculty Senate for approval and will then be presented to CPC as “stands or with modifications”. The priorities are listed alphabetically.

    D. Great Teachers Seminar: Will be held in Santa Barbara July 29 to August 3. David Balogh needs two faculty representatives to attend; the college would pay expenses. Lisa forwarded Gabby Rodriguez’ name. Gabby must speak with David directly.

    E.  Horticulture Plant Sale: Please support the department. The sale will be held May 11-May 13 in the parking lot below the Sheriff’s Office.

    F.  Master Plan Goals & Objectives: David expressed his concerns regarding the 25/75 Ratio listed on Page 7. David said the goal targeted only a 1% increase by the year 2004 in the percentage of classes taught by contract faculty, and that this was not very ambitious compared to the targets set for growth in other areas. David asked for support from the Senate for his efforts in lobbying John Hurd regarding these concerns. The Senate approved. Both CPC and the DCC had viewed the document. Copies of the Master Plan are available from Jing Luan.

IV.    Action
    A.  Committee Assignments- Nancy A. Brown
          CIP: Nancy questioned if her request for Debra Bone to be an occupational representative on CIP would present a conflict of interest, as Debra will be the CCFT President. This does not represent a conflict of interest, as there is no CCFT representative serving on CIP. The Senate had no objections to Debra serving on CIP.

         Dues: David asked the Senate if they would agree to donate $100.00 to the Classified Retreat. This money will come from the Faculty Senate checking account, and not from the college. Donna moved to donate $100.00 to the Classified Retreat. Steve seconded the motion. The motion was passed. Steve, as Treasurer, will write a check for $100.00.

V.     Old Business
     A. DART
          A forum was held on April 24 to discuss the criteria for establishing units for the college. As a result of the forum, two temporary working titles were created, “Schools” will represent Divisions and “Clusters” will represent departments.

         David had suggested at the forum that faculty should represent themselves by organizing themselves into groups, and deciding on the size of the groups. Claire had suggested groups around 15 with 45 the maximum predicated upon the complexity; Math and English both have high numbers of faculty. The Clusters are due to the Instruction Office by May 8.

         David expressed his concerns with not being able to answer the questions that faculty have regarding these groupings. One concern expressed was for departments that have less than 15, but are still very complex programs. Eric referred to Culinary Arts, which is both a business and a program, but has less than 15 and said that he does not believe that a Lead Faculty would be able to run two departments of such complexity at the same time. David asked for input from the Senate regarding the division realignment. Claire remarked that the e-mail that had been sent regarding the clusters, stated that complex programs could come forward as one program and that the people within the programs need to make these decisions as to their own complexity. For example, Public Safety has only 2 full-time faculty, but the program is extremely complex.

          Joseph questioned if some departments would be subdivided and that VAPA already feels clustered as a new building has been built specifically for the department. David remarked on the need to distinguish that Clusters will report to the Deans, also VAPA may be too big to be a single Cluster.

         Lisa informed that Senate that MSE would meet on Friday to discuss departmental concerns, specifically those of Geology, Astronomy and Engineering. Jo-Ann is concerned with the units for the program directors and the departments, noting that Engineering is a program, but Jo-Ann has release time as a Director. Claire remarked that had the decision been made to start first with the “Schools”, then it would have gone through the Union to determine who would be working with the “faculty chair” and the reassign time. The term “faculty chair” will be used as some people find the term “lead faculty” demeaning. Claire remarked that she and Jo-Ann had met earlier today to discuss this issue. The reassign time needs to be discussed for the “faculty chairs” and the importance of having few administrative layers. David remarked that the choices had been to either have the faculty decide on the clustering or assign the faculty to clusters, but David wants the faculty to have a voice in the decision process. Claire noted the difficulty of “figuring out the faculty chair piece working this way”. Marcy remarked that the choices are different for some people predicated upon whether or not they currently have a Director and work without a department chair. Claire noted the original idea in DART had been to combine several small departments that worked without a faculty chair, as there were no resources for a faculty chair in each department. Robin felt the term “department chair” was a confusing title, and the term “clusters” held the wrong connotations in relation to Biology and would prefer the title “lead faculty” used.

          David remarked that DART has not yet worked on the budget and would like input on the “clusters”. Claire stated that the budget would not be known until negotiations took place. Jo-Ann had four comment for the Senate, 1) if 4 departments combine, the title “department chair” could not be used, 2) does not agree with Claire’s comment regarding having APD’s and lead faculty, whether or not the term “Director” is used, the person will still be directing even without the title, 3) the cost regarding divvying out the units and 4) only 5-10% of her duties could be done by another lead faculty and if she continues with these duties, there will be no compensation. Jo-Ann mentioned the idea of shared leading in the combinations of the departments. David informed Jo-Ann that the Faculty Senate has collegiate input but cannot decide on the organization. David does not feel comfortable letting anyone but affected faculty decide on the initial organization of their areas. Cabrillo College has a good collegiate atmosphere and will be a venue for providing input for Claire and DART. David asked the Senators if they had been “clustering”.

          Joseph remarked on the feeling in VAPA that the decision has already been made regarding the structure and if the decision has already been made, then “get on with it”. Dave suggested that those who feel this way should e-mail Claire with that information. Topsy has the list of APD’s from the contract and asked that they be considered in the decision making. In response to Topsy’s query, Claire replied that the APD’s are represented on DART. Robin expressed concern with lead faculty in charge of programs that they were unfamiliar with. David responded to then leave the occupational programs as they are. Robin also expressed concern with having 27 APD’s as well as having lead faculty with reassign time. Claire responded we will not have APD’s and lead faculty and that due to working from the bottom up, this is an issue that will have to be worked through. Nancy remarked that the problem is not with the clusters, but with how many the school can afford. Nancy does not see enough reassign time to compensate new lead faculty. Claire responded that there was a way to do this through negotiation had the decision been made to start with the Schools first. This will now be known in two weeks when the information regarding the clusters is gathered and the information will be available to give an idea of the cost. David stated that as either the institution or the faculty decides, he had advocated working “bottom up”. The job of the Faculty Senate is to provide input to those who will make the decisions. David had made the decision that he had thought was in the best interest of the faculty and ultimately the college. David asked Joseph to explain to VAPA why it is so important to give input. Joseph felt the information was too vague to explain.

         Claire stated that Music and Theatre Arts could each be their own cluster. David stated that Michele Rivard had thought that Music should stand alone and David concurs. Jo-Ann remarked that her concerns had been a result of the 15-45 number proposed. David replied that faculty need to consider “would you be willing to run a group this size and received up to ½ reassigned time to do it”. Claire remarked that it was important to ask, “what should a faculty member be doing as a faculty member”, and the need to think about faculty responsibilities other than teaching. Claire stated that this would be an interesting exercise. In response, Jo-Ann said to look in the contract, under director’s duties. Claire replied to look at what the faculty obligations are also.

         Claire offered to speak to the VAPA Division, and offered to speak with any other Divisions or faculty to answer questions and respond to concerns.

VI.    New Business
     A. ASCCC Spring 2001 Session: David Balogh, Nancy Brown, Topsy Smalley
          David remarked that he had a good time at the conference. Topsy concurred, a “wonderful environment” for meeting people and obtaining information. Topsy helped lead a break out session and has been involved with the conference for the last 10 years, the last ¾ at statewide meetings. Topsy distributed copies of competency resolution that had been adopted. Each college may decide on how to adopt the resolution. Cabrillo using LIB10 as a corequisite with ENGL1A for the last 10 years has become known as the “Cabrillo Model”.

          Nancy had concerns regarding a couple of resolutions, the 50%Law and Dual Admission. The 50% Law requires that at least 50% of current cost of education must be for salaries of classroom faculty. The last 50% Law had been passed in 1961 and was not being enforced by the Chancellor’s Office. The Academic Senate had wanted resolution. One recommendation was to put a cap on administrative salaries and look at non-teaching expenditures.

         The second concern regarding the passing of the Dual Admission Resolution. Nancy had attended the break out session. The top 12% of students who did not complete all the requirements would be eligible and would be identified and approached by colleges. Nancy had met the Director of Dental Hygiene at the University of California at San Francisco who was presenting the break out session. This woman had applied as a student to UCSF, was not admitted, went to a different school and was now Director of the program for UCSF. Her experience had made her an advocate of outreach programs in general and Dual Admissions especially.

         The passing of the resolution was contingent upon the $6,000,000.00 funding. Donna again expressed concern with the $40 student fee that might potentially be lost if the student did not attend the contracted college. Donna said that the CEO’s had voted to reject the Dual Admissions Plan. Nancy was worried that CEO’s are making determinations regarding academic and professional matters without Senate consultation and reminded Donna that students are invited but not obligated to accept and many students want the guaranteed admission into UC. Donna noted the problem of spending millions on what already exists, the admissions requirements are not changing.

          David informed the Senators that, per their request, he had voted against the resolution. There will be a copy of all the resolutions as well as the results of the votes from the conference, including the CCLDI, which uses public money to instruct teachers and administrators on how to teach and administer.

         The next conference will be held in LA, the one next year will be held in SF. David would like to sponsor a busload of people to spend the Friday in San Francisco to get an idea of how wonderful an experience it is to attend the conference. David remarked that the Chancellor and the President of the organization had held a break out session. A list of agenda questions was compiled from the participants and answered by the Chancellor and President.

     B. Transportation Management Plan: Cliff Nichols
          David introduced Cliff, a former President of Cabrillo College to the Senate. Cliff had been asked to chair the Transportation Management Committee. The committee was formed in response to the need for the adoption of a management plan for transportation for Cabrillo. The committee has met once a month since September 2000.

         Cliff distributed copies of the Transportation Management Plan, draft 2001 and provided a brief history and composition of the committee.

         The results of a survey of students and faculty demonstrated that most students, faculty and staff arrive on campus individually in their automobiles. This information was used to help develop the Transportation Plan. The goal of the plan is to increase group transportation using ride shares, busses or vans pools.

         The committee had asked the Board to increase the student parking fee from $30.00 to $40.00. This increase would pay for a coordinator position for the plan, would meet the obligations of EIR and would hopefully encourage students to purchase the less expensive alternative, the bus pass for $30.00 (Cabrillo College would only pay for the fares to and from campus). The Board has not yet approved the increase in fee. Cliff noted one suggestion was to build a Student Services Center with a commuter central area. The area would list bus schedules, a student to answer questions and provide information and to provide a coordination of ride shares and van pools. Another suggestion was to use Global Imaging to locate pickup areas. Cliff was soliciting information from the Senate to take to the Board. Please provide input, via e-mail, directly to Cliff.

         Helene questioned the feasibility of ride share if someone had an emergency and needed to leave campus. Cliff responded that with membership in the TMA, rides would be provided for emergencies and other needs, i.e. errands. Communal bicycles might also be provided for the use of those who wanted to run errands off campus.

          David Balogh suggested finding a way to give away free bus passes if the parking fee is increased. Cliff responded that Cabrillo College pays too much money to the transit district and the money needs to be recouped. Cabrillo College uses the money from the parking fees to pay for the bus fares. Cliff stated that UCSC employees pay $600.00 for their parking passes, and are happy to get one, as the competition is high for parking.

         In response to Elizabeth’s question, Cliff responded that the fee could not be raised more than $40.00, as it is the cap listed in the Educational Code. Elizabeth informed the Senate that as the parking fines are so minimal, students are willing to pay the fines without having to purchase the parking permit.

         The draft distributed by Cliff discussed the above mentioned issues, the results of the surveys as well as other pertinent information.

VII.   Reports Continued
     A. Multiple Degrees: Nick Roberts informed the Senate that a disgruntled student might request to be placed on the agenda regarding a request for multiple degrees.

         A couple of months ago another student had requested and received two AS Degrees in Horticulture. This did not sit well in retrospect with the occupation faculty. Once the student received the degrees, the language regarding multiple degrees was changed in the catalog. Wanda had expressed concern with Cabrillo College becoming a “degree mill” and Rock was concerned with easing up on transfer. In response to the concerns, the Academic Council created new language for the requirements for Multiple Associate Degrees within Occupational Programs and the requirements for Multiple Associate Degrees in Transfer Programs (see handout).

          The disgruntled student had appeared before the Academic Council requesting four degrees, an AS in Math, AS in Physics, AA in Math and AA in Physics. The Academic Council had denied her request per the catalog language under requirements for multiple Associate Degrees. Lisa remarked that Math is a prerequisite for Physics and Cabrillo College would lose credibility in transfer if the multiple degrees were awarded. Lisa felt the student’s request involved a desire for validation for all the work involved in the programs. Donna remarked that an AA is not needed for transfer. Nick had written a letter to the student suggesting one degree that listed all that was accomplished. David Balogh concurred. Rock is currently working on specifying the language in occupational education to specify one degree.

         Nancy felt the Horticulture student’s request had been valid as the two degrees enhanced her chance for employment in the two different fields (Agriculture and Landscaping) of the degrees.

VIII. Agenda Building
       1) DART
       2) Student petition- pending contract from the student.
       3) Parking- Joseph. Nancy informed Joseph that parking is free to faculty as it is Union
            negotiated.
       4) Goals and Objections

IX.    Items from the Floor
         In response to Elizabeth’s concern regarding the Flex activity language “In search of algebra text” Lisa informed the Student Senator that the text is not being added, but is replacing a text that will no longer be in print. Elizabeth’s concern was with students having to purchase an additional textbook.
         The Student Senate elections will be held May 15, 16, 17.

X.     Adjournment
         The meeting adjourned at 5:00p.m.

FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES: May 15, 2001
3:00p.m. To 5:00p.m., Room 1804

Present:       David Balogh, Nancy A. Brown, Letitia Scott-Curtis, Steve Hodges, Topsy Smalley, David Sullivan, Lisa Feintech, Belita Magee, Chuck Smith, Jay Siskin, Eric Carter, Helene Jara, Robin McFarland, Claudia Close, Rory O’Brien, Joseph Ribeiro, Donna Mekis, Mary Ellen Sullivan, Elizabeth Curtis

Absent:        Marcy Alancraig, Nick Roberts, Steve Cox
Guests:        Claire Biancalana, Deborah Bone, Julie Edwards, Michele Rivard, Jing Luan, Judy Cassada
Staff:            Bronze Freeman

I.    Call to Order
       The meeting was called to order at 3:06:41.

II.   Minutes
      On Page 1, Reports, B, Letitia corrected “workout” to “care out” to read, “Letitia informed the Senators of the care out for childcare providers”. On Page 2, Old Business, A, fifth paragraph, Lisa corrected the tense of  “would meet” to “had met” to read, “Lisa informed the Senate that MSE had met on Friday to discuss departmental concerns”.

      Chuck moved to approve the corrected minutes. Lisa seconded the motion. The minutes were adopted as corrected.

III. Reports
 A. Technology Committee: Steve Hodges
The TLC has new laptops with small projectors available for check out. If a faculty member wished to check one out, they would have to take a 5 minute instruction class. The TLC would like to move away from the “check out business”, and is moving toward offering the availability for faculty to own the laptop/projector; eventually all faculty could individually own one of these.

      David Balogh suggested outfitting each classroom with a laptop/projector as opposed to purchasing one for each faculty; David remarked on the ease of carrying the information (slides, disks, etc.) as opposed to carrying the actual equipment. Steve noted the advantage of an instructor carrying their “environment” with them and the cost of purchasing individual laptops/projectors will be affordable for the college.

 B.  Assistive Technology Sub-Committee: Steve Hodges
      Has made great advancements, 1) in terms of accessibility of hardware and software and 2) the new Media Center, which has been funded by Student Services and DSPS.

C. CISOA Conference: Steve Hodges
      A meeting of the “chief nerds” of community colleges. Funding for Technology 2 was discussed and will find out more about the Technology 2 funding within the next couple of months.
      The committee also discussed student’s needs for on-line availability, i.e.: registration, financial aid, etc. This issue will most likely become a priority. Steve remarked that Campus Cruiser would provide most of these services, and Steve will bring an update on Campus Cruiser to the next Senate meeting.

 D. Treasures Report: Steve Hodges
       Steve distributed a copy of the Faculty Senate Financial Report and quoted Marc Eastman, “we’ve got money”.

 E. Presidents Report: David Balogh
      David read the e-mail from Chancellor Nussbaum regarding budgets for community colleges. Claire clarified that Eva Acosta is coordinating TRDP, which will be able to continue and will not be affected by the budget, and currently $550,000 is ongoing and available for instruction.

 F.  Recycling: David Balogh
      Dave Rowen has asked for volunteers to serve on a steering committee. If you are “passionate about recycling”, please contact Dave at 477-3521.

IV. Action
 A. Committee Assignments: Nancy Brown
      There were none.

 B. Choose Great Teachers Seminar Attendees: David Balogh
      The Senators had been asked to submit names of faculty that were interested in attending the seminar. Two names were submitted: Shawn Houghton and Gabriella Rodriguez, by Robin and Lisa respectively. These names and Robin’s were forwarded to Claire.

 C. Authorize funds for Graduation: David Balogh
      Past practice of the Faculty Senate has been to sponsor the food for the faculty at graduation. David spoke with Cliff Nichols who recommended a donation of $500.00 to $600.00. David asked the Senators to authorize up to a maximum of $600.00. Claudia moved to approve. Lisa seconded the motion. The Senate authorized $600.00 to be spent on graduation.

An additional item was added to the agenda with the consent of the Senate
 D. CIP: Topsy Smalley
      Topsy referred to the CIP handout regarding prioritization that was distributed at the last meeting. Topsy moved to ratify the prioritized list. Chuck seconded. The prioritized list was ratified.

The Senate agreed to combine agenda item V and agenda item VI, A
V: VI, A.  DART/What Directors Do
      Claudia (speaking as Nancy A. Brown’s representative at the meeting) informed the Senate that DART had met last Friday to discuss the results of the clusters; DART would like to honor the requests. Most programs had requested autonomy and a few programs had failed to respond to the cluster request. The “Schools” will now be referred to as “Divisions” and DART had used the Counseling Division’s cluster idea, but there was disparity with the numbers. DART had come up with four possibilities for 5 Divisions, #3 and #4 are the modifications of #1 and #2. Claire clarified that possibility #1 and #2 are the input from the campus. David remarked that the possibilities had been sent to the campus as attachments on Claire’s last Instruction Note.

David remarked that when combined, the 4 possibilities do not total the correct number of faculty; this will be rectified. Claudia informed the Senate that the APD forum is currently on hold, in lieu a forum will be held on Friday from 2:00p.m.to 4:00p.m. to discuss the clusters. Claire remarked that the APD forum would have to be held in the beginning of fall.

      David asked the Senators for input from their constituencies regarding the clusters. Donna had attended a meeting of A&R and Student Services regarding the affect that the reorganization would have on Datatel. Al Holbert was in attendance at the meeting and had recommended that a consultant be hired to look at this. Claire clarified; she had spoken with Student Services and the Business Mangers, in Business Services, when the college goes to 5 Divisions, one 4-digit number in every budget number will have to be changed (manually or with a program written to the task). This job can be done by either Tess or by a consultant, Claire mentioned Tuck & Rose who have done work for the college before.

      Robin spoke for BECHO and the three concerns that had been voiced at their meeting on May 4, 2001. The first concern was that it was difficult to cluster without knowing the role of the Lead Faculty. The second concern was that the process was chaotic and without a defined process it was making faculty decision difficult and the last concern was with the awkward timing at the end of the year. Joseph had heard rumors that those departments that did want to cluster also wanted to be in charge of the clusters. David Balogh clarified that the purpose was to have faculty responsibilities rotate in a cluster over time. David’s definition of a good administrator is one who makes his (David’s) job easier. Claire remarked that the hope is to have practical experience next year to go on as a result of the pilot.

      David Sullivan remarked that there has been discussion of clustering within the English Division. English had voted on working on other alternatives to clustering, i.e. increasing the classified support; the English Division was also concerned with the rushed timing. David noted that once English found out that they had to cluster, they have been working on cluster ideas. David equated the English Division to a “900 pound gorilla” that no one seems to want.

      Steve Hodges, speaking for BCS, remarked that the division saw a need for reorganization and was looking forward to it. However, there were some concerns expressed, specifically that small programs would have different requirements, the question as to where some programs would belong (“not in clustering but where it makes sense to go”) and some clusters are more popular than others. David remarked that the proposed 4 possibilities should allay some of the concerns and suggested that everyone look at them. Nancy, in response to David, noted the importance of differentiating between the cluster and the Division. To David Sullivan, Nancy remarked that English is a cluster unto itself. The campus needs to differentiate between “programs into a cluster and clusters into divisions”. The criteria, along with directions were distributed to the campus and Nancy is baffled as to where the confusion exists. Nancy remarked on the “need for strength to confront DART with what faculty want”.

      Robin stated that BECHO did understand the difference between cluster and Division; the Division clustered with what made sense academically. One concern with a rotating Lead Faculty was with the responsibility of that rotation. Robin remarked on the difficulty of managing without knowing the information that needs to be negotiated. David Balogh felt that discussion is helpful.

      Claire remarked that the one goal, when the 4 possibilities were created, was to honor the cluster requests, which was difficult because most programs had requested to be autonomous. As to the rumors that the APD positions would be eliminated, and have to train the new Lead Faculty without reassign time, Claire responded that the information is still unknown; those decisions have not been made but will be through negotiations with CCFT and the District. Claire remarked that, “we have clusters, have ideas for the Divisions and in the fall, CCFT will work on the Faculty Chairs. Please don’t think every APD will lose reassign time”. In response to David’s question as to whether a meeting would take place with SEIU, Claire replied yes, that meeting will take place next Tuesday, May 22.

      David Balogh introduced Michele Rivard, Music Director and Julie Edwards, ECE Director who will speak to “what Directors do”. Michele clarified that she and Julie were here to discuss what Directors do, not what Directors will do in the restructure.

Michele distributed a handout detailing some of the duties of Department Directors. Michele provided the Senators with a brief synopsis of what Directors do and what each Director does (not all Director duties are the same and are predicated upon the program). For example, Michele stated that she writes 90% of curriculum, which is supposed to be faculty driven. Michele remarked that when the DC’s had become management, the Program Directors had become “first line”.

      Julie remarked that the list of Director duties is a partial one. Julie asked three questions regarding the listed responsibilities, 1) are these tasks part of faculty’s ordinary out-of-class responsibilities, 2) can these tasks be done by someone outside of the discipline and 3) can these tasks be done by the classified staff? Julie noted the strength of programs is their diversity and asked the Senate to think about the small programs and those programs that offer a large amount of different courses when looking at the list. Julie asked the Senate to consider what the APD’s do and noted two critical issues in the reorganization, 1) how to define the jobs and 2) how to define the jobs of the Deans. There have been 5 negotiations for Directors so far, but it has been difficult due to the conflict over what is faculty responsibility.

      Claudia suggested proposing two different types of Directors at negotiations, 1) Program Director-a Director who handles the vast amount of administrative work that cannot be delegated and 2) a Cluster Director where each faculty member would still continue to do their own work, i.e. curriculum. Julie felt that Claudia was moving in the right direction. David Balogh remarked that the Senate could discuss this, but this is an issue for negotiations. Regarding the programs, “don’t mess with what works”. Michele replied that not all programs are “working well”. In response to Donna’s question, Claire replied that currently there are 37 APD’s.

      Joseph, speaking in terms of the Lead Faculty, said that some would take to the administrative side, others wouldn’t and felt that some faculty, especially “the artists” would not want to be in or rotate in the Lead Faculty position. Claire remarked that had been the original thought when putting the cluster recommendations together; some departments are so complex that one APD would remain over the program, other APD’s would be over a cluster.

      Nancy, referring to the list of Director duties, noted that some of the listed duties are faculty responsibilities. Nancy regards these as such as she has done, and continues to do, these tasks. Julie agreed that many are faculty duties, but asked if the faculty should then receive reassign time to do these duties. Nancy replied no. Julie felt it should be predicated upon the complexity of the program and how it fits in the teaching load.

      In response to Joseph concern with Faculty Lead rotation, Nancy responded that no faculty member would be forced into the rotation position. It appeared that DART had wanted to follow a university model. Deborah Bone responded that a piece of the problem is using a university program; community colleges have different components and Cluster Directors fit the university model.

      David informed the Senate that as Stephanie Stainback was unable to attend today’s meeting, Helene would speak for Stephanie regarding the concerns of SEIU. Helene noted 6 concerns, 1) SEIU has no problem with the concept of change, 2) SEIU wishes for a infrastructure before the pilot program, 3) question as to how the restructure could remain budget neutral,
      4) SEIU supports the idea of an administrative assistant for each Dean, 5) will support CCFT and wants equitable deal negotiated for the APD’s and 6) would like to receive support from Faculty Senate regarding issues dealing with workload. Claire reminded the Senate that a functional task analysis is being done to look at all the tasks within the divisions. “DART did all they could do and the information is now with a consultant who reorganized Student Services and Human Resources”. The consultant will send his recommendations to DART as to whether or not a Dean’s assistant is needed. This information is due Monday, and Claire will share this information with SEIU.

Regarding the number of classifieds in the reorganization, Claudia concurred with Nancy that the amount of classifieds would be doubled in the office in the restructure; where currently one exits, four will exist. Nancy asked Julie if the APD’s agree with the criteria. Julie remarked that the criteria were negotiated, she can’t speak for all the APD’s but it is important to use the criteria. It is a compromise, “ the idea of the formula is good, but the formula is not necessarily good”.

VI. New Business
  B. A Look at our Objectives for 2001: David Balogh

1. Regarding the forums, “we have had plenty”(DART), but this was not a topic suggested in our objectives.
2. Cross-divisional networking needs more attention.
3. We need to do more with our objectives to discuss innovation in the classroom.
4. On the “writing in the classroom” objective. David has lobbied the CCFT whenever possible to obtain a resolution to the writing factor, especially in classes which require writing factor work, but in which faculty are not remunerated for their work. David was pleased to say that in our new contract, POLI SCI 1 now has a writing factor.
5. The web page for “student success” is completed and is a success it has its own e-mail address, but the page is not linked to Cabrillo College Home Page but will be.
6. David has been an advocate for improved number and placement of  Division Assistants.
7. 75/25 Ratio- At the last CPC meeting, David and Nancy advocated for an improvement of the objective as originally proposed (1% over 4 years). The CPC agreed to change the objective to read “increase by 1% per year over four years”.
8. The Committee Web Page has been completed.
9. Accreditation has been completed and was extremely successful.
The Senate had no questions regarding the objectives. The Senate will continue to work on these objectives and will be addressed again at the end of the year.
 

   C. Work Experience Education: Rebecca Arnesty
        This item has been pulled from the agenda as the issue has reached resolution.

VII. Reports Continued
        There were none.

Items from the floor were moved up on the agenda as the guests had been waiting to speak.
IX.  Items from the Floor
   A. Climate Survey: Jing Luan and Judy Cassada
        Jing briefly introduced both he and Judy to Faculty Senate. The survey is done every 3 years, and Judy will be “pestering” the faculty in the fall regarding this. The survey is in the same format for historical data and for accreditation.

       #7 and #8 will be removed from the survey, as they are no longer valid. The classrooms will be randomly selected to complete the survey and will take 15-20 minutes maximum. The results would hopefully be posted by spring.

        Donna had attended a Student Services Managers meeting and #5 on the survey had been discussed. Only Cabrillo College majors are listed and no 4 year majors were listed. Donna suggested including a check box for “other major not listed”. Jing agreed and remarked that #2 will include both the Math and Writing Center. David thanked Jing and Judy for attending and for their patience.

   B. David did not hear from the student regarding the petition for multiple degrees.

   C. Honesty Outreach Program: Joseph Ribeiro
        Joseph is a team leader and will be taking a group to UCSC to meet with the actors, costume designers, etc. Only 10 spots are left and the form must be completed by soon. A free lunch at the Sesnon House will be included.

   D. Great Teacher Seminar: David Balogh
        Please refer Shawn Houghton and Gabby Rodriguez to Claire.

   E. Student Senate Elections: Liz Curtis
        1) Please have faculty inform their classes that elections are being held May 15, 16 and 17.
        2) Alpha Gamma Sigma: Please RSVP for Thursday. Please attend if you were nominated, your students would like to see you there.

        Liz informed the Senate that there are no candidates for the Vice-President and Treasurer seats on the Student Senate. Besides Liz, there is only one other candidate for President.

   F. David Balogh informed the Senate that they would not meet again until August. David has booked the Sesnon House for all the meetings next semester, except for September 25.

VIII.Agenda Building
1. DART
2. Evaluations. Nancy remarked that as the Dean structure changes, evaluations would have to be reconfigured and will be negotiated by CCFT next year. Faculty Senate should look at the contract and discuss this issue before negotiations. The issue of division representation on committees also needs to be discussed.
3. Curriculum-Claudia Close. Will revisit the curriculum composition and rewrite the curriculum book.

X.    Adjournment
        The meeting was adjourned at 4:43p.m.