COLLEGE OF MARIN
Academic Senate Meeting Minutes
Thursday, December 07, 2006
12:45 -2:00 pm
Student Service Building,
Conference Rooms A & B
Senators Present: Yolanda Bellisimo, Barbara Bonander, Hank Fearnley, Theo Fung, Ron Gaiz, Deborah Graham, Erika Harkins, Patrick Kelly, Arthur Lutz, Radica Portello, David Rollison, , Ingrid Schreck, John Sutherland, Blaze Woodlief
Senators Absent: Sheri Rollison
Guests: Hoa-Long Tam, Sara McKinnon, Jessica Sutter, Linda Beam, Bernie Blackman, Peggy Dodge
Senator Fearnley raised a point of personal privilege and asked that the video camera be moved.
Approval of Agenda & Minutes
Motion made to approve the agenda
· Motion adopted
Motion to approve the minutes
· Motion adopted as amended
The President reported the following:
· Paul Christensen prefers that AS President meet with UPM Exec Council about the Faculty Evaluations.
· Copies of the document changes that were suggested to UPM to be changed will be passed out to Senators. Senators should e-mail the President with any further changes and issues to bring forward at the UPM meeting (dates to be announced). Senators are invited to attend this UPM meeting.
· The President’s convocation on January 19, 2007 has been turned over to IPC and they will plan the meeting for the convocation concerning Program Review.
· The first meeting of AS will commence on January 25, 2007.
· AS will meet the first week of classes, not the first week of FLEX
The Vice President reported the following:
· The VP received an e-mail regarding the agenda for the DMC from V-Anne, the Director of Modernization regarding the bond spending plan. The agenda announced a 70 minute discussion on the revised bond spending plan at the next meeting.
· It is unclear whether the meeting’s purpose is to report on a spending plan that has already been negotiated or devise a spending plan with the committee.
· The treasurer submitted a written report.
· Spanish course 140 passed through CC –Spanish study abroad program
· A written report was submitted.
Academic Standards Committee
· No report.
· The calendar item will be discussed in the committee.
· Budget Committee and IPC will meet together once a month (in addition to separate meetings) to better combine planning and budget. 2008-09 will be structured much differently as a result of program review and planning efforts.
· No report.
· The committee is discussing the rollover plan details, partnerships with other businesses like Comcast and Google, and policy development for the college.
Instructional Equipment Committee
· The committee is concerned that the process and timeline they developed for the distribution of funds has been stalled and the funds have not yet been distributed. The process is stalled in fiscal services. VP Martinez is following up with Al Harrison for an update.
Senator Woodlief made the motion to pay Brown Act Trainer.
Sutherland—yes; Fearnley—no; Rollison,
D—abstain; Graham—no; Ron—yes; Barbara—yes; Portello—yes; Lutz--yes;
Harkins—yes; Woodlief—yes; Schreck—yes; Bellisimo--yes
Senator Lutz made the motion that “Any proposed expenditure greater than $100 be brought to the AS in open meetings for prior approval and that all payments of any amount be reported in open meetings subsequent to the expenditure and all proposed expenditures and payments be reported to the AS treasurer in a timely manner.”
Rollison, D—yes; Graham—yes; Ron—yes; Barbara—yes; Portello—yes;
Fung--yes; Harkins—yes; Woodlief—yes; Schreck—Abstain; Bellisimo--yes
Senators discussed that petitions read by students in an open meeting (under the Brown Act) may involve privacy concerns and the Senate should revisit this issue in the future.
Senator Bonander made a motion to revise Academic Standards Committee Policy to read:
The committee may request that one Administrator—one non-voting administrator, Dean of Enrollment Services and any other non-voting individual that management wishes to assign.
· Motion withdrawn
Senator D. Rollison moved that “The proposed change in the Academic Standards Board Policy not be endorsed by the Academic Senate and to leave the original language of the AS policy as it is.”
o Motion adopted unanimously
Program Review Document
Senators discussed the following points regarding program review:
Two copies of the document were sent to the Senators one with changes and the original. The changes include language that explains that the document is and will be modified as the process evolves and as constituents are consulted; it is an iterative document. Other minor language changes were made: “would” instead of could” to illustrate that program review is not mandatory.
The changes on page 9 were suggested by the AS. Any iterance of discontinuation of programs was taken out. Other changes are included 5 a which explains that Program Review should prompt the budgeting and maintenance of programs that are healthy and if programs are struggling, or if these programs need more resources, or need restructuring, the program review process will work to prompt the support of appropriate resources. Changes in section 5.a.1. explains that the people involved in program review, the program participants, will determine what their program is, what they want to achieve, what data they want to use to prove what they have done and they will also determine whether they have reached their goals.
Senator Sutherland requests that the language be changed to reflect a more positive tone. Instead of “to determine that a program is not meeting its goals” it could read “to determine that a program is meeting its goals.”
The AS should consider developing a Memorandum of Understanding with the board that would prevent unilateral control of cutting programs with no faculty input. An MOU will work to stop arbitrary discontinuation of programs by establishing set criteria.
A State AS position paper cautions local senates about the misuse of program review; it should not be used to cut of programs.
VP suggests that the document be sent out with a statement to all faculty before the convocation explaining the nature of program review at CoM.
Program review can shine light on programs that are healthy and growing; faculty need to understand that program review can be and should be designed & used to nurture programs.
Senator Fearnley recommended that we have convocation go to faculty and present them with issues we are facing now in program review
Senator Woodlief moved to approve the Program Review document as amended with the contingency that the AS has the right to review the document and remove approval in the future if the document is no longer acceptable.
· Motion adopted unanimously
Senator Kelly moved that Program Review document state that Program Review will not be used to justify discontinuation or termination of programs.
· Motion adopted unanimously
Meeting adjourned at 1:59 pm
Minutes submitted by Schreck