Minutes
Date
Time
Location
Monday, October 22, 2012
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM
Room P-4 and NDC 35
Area/Position
Person
President
Vice President
Secretary
Arts and Letters
Agriculture, CIS and Business
Public Service /Social Science
Student Services Faculty
Science, Math & Physical Education
Allied Health
Administration
Jeff Wanderer
Cal Tincher
Brandy Wilds
Jim Grant
Clint Cowden
Cal Tincher
Erin Corea
Mike Burke
Frank Morales( R. Mayer)
Stephanie Droker
Present
Yes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
No
1.0 Call to order
1.1 Call to order at 12:04
1.2 Additions to the Agenda None
2.0 Public Comments
2.1 None
3.0 Approval of Minutes
3.1 Minutes from October 8, 2012: E. Corea motioned to approve, C. Tincher seconded, approved
unanimously; R. Mayer abstained.
4.0 Administrative Report
4.1 We’ve had very productive accreditation meetings, which kicked them off last week. The faculty are
doing a great job moving into action. S. Droker is very appreciative of this effort and wishes to thank
everyone. The recommendation teams are starting to talk and address planning agendas.
We are also moving forward with 2013-15 catalog revisions. S. Droker will be sending an email to
have everyone look at courses and programs to make sure that any changes have been reflected in
the catalogue. We are looking for the most perfected level of imperfection. So, please have faculty be
prepared to look at the catalogue draft.
S. Droker would like to thank faculty who have stepped up to help with part time evaluations.
5.0 Standing Committee Reports
5.1
Facilities Development Council: They meet this week.
5.2
Curriculum: Cancelled last week and meets next week.
5.3
Board Meeting: Meeting tomorrow will be going over credit by examination policy. There are some
new titles to be discussed.
5.4
Instructional Services Council : Met two weeks ago
5.5
College Planning Council : Met Wednesday
5.6
District Leadership Council : Cancelled
5.7
Equivalency: A. Hanjiev is finishing reviewing a math candidate, and then they will meet.
5.8
SLO Committee: E-mails have circulated about making sure SLO’s are up to date.
5.9
DECC Committee: Approved program discontinuance/viability policy. J. Wanderer sent to senators
to review. It is now a finalized document.
5.10 Student Services Council: There was an update on residence halls, cafeteria, program review,
and exit survey (once they are ready to leave here, they are surveyed on what they thought about the
services here and so forth).
6.0
Instructional Area Reports
6.1 Arts and Letters: None
6.2 Agriculture, CIS and Business : None
6.3 Public Service/ Social Science: None
6.4 Student Services Faculty: None
6.5 Science, Math & Physical Education: M. Burke assigned people to different accreditation subcommittees. They weren’t really represented on district recommendations, so he kept people on
college recommendations—except for J. Wanderer.
6.6 Health Careers: Aside from curriculum redesign, as a result of C6, they are changing their program by
condensing it into one year. They are taking this redesign one semester at a time. It is a state of
transition. Due to expectations associated with the C6 grant, there may be an impact on students who
repeat (failed and come back). They are looking at contract distance Ed in two sites; they have a
cohort of 20 at Modesto JC; they already have 16 week terms.
Originally our program was a one year program, but to save money they switched to an 18 month
program. The pass rates were better when it was an 18 month program. However, it will be difficult to
know how to contract faculty. Many faculty are nervous. They are trying to focus on what the C6 grant
wants them to do first, then they will protect faculty.
.
7.0
Old Business
7.1 None
8.0
New Business
8.1 Function mapping: very extensive—look and pay attention to our areas
8.2 Accreditation teams: Not everyone worked on placing area members on teams, so J. Wanderer went
ahead and did it. J. Wanderer divided up duties appropriately. S. Droker urges senate to keep people
who were on standards and recommendations for the follow up report on those same teams. We do
have new employees, and employees who are no longer here, so there will be new faces on some
teams. Senate seems in favor of the plan.
8.3 AP 7211 Faculty Service Areas, Minimum Qualification and Equivalencies – Must take action today.
The main contentious point is that of the CIO being the final decision. (Faculty do all the work but are
over ridden). The collaboration with the eq. committee and the admin needs a voice in the council so
there is some understanding between what needs of college are and of what the faculty are aware.
Ultimately, if the college decides they want to hire someone, they can. M. Burke thinks it would be nice
to have the CIO as a non-voting member of the committee so that there is discussion before issues
develop. C. Tincher agrees; it means that you cut to the chase—at one point. Sometimes there is
information that isn’t given to committee, and it would be useful to have CIO there have information
and answer questions. It would save time.
However, M. Burke and C. Tincher agree that the CIO should NOT have the final say; it should go to
the board. J. Grant agrees as well with C. Tincher and M. Burke on the final decision going to board
and not the CIO—otherwise committee’s work, along with the Academic Senate, is a waste of time. R.
Mayer thinks the CIO is more qualified than the board. However. C. Tincher thinks the board, as
elected members, need to make the final decision. J. Wanderer (playing devil’s advocate) says:
Senate will look at equivalency; there is a disagreement between faculty and CIO, so the board will
nominate a person to be a designee, and the board makes the president a designee.
C. Tincher states that Senate can’t tie hands of CIO in short term, emergency equivalency, but in long
term the equivalency is in this process.
J. Wanderer mentioned that equivalencies won’t always be determined by the board; C. Tincher and
E. Corea noted that equivalency would only go to board if there is a disagreement.
However, if CIO is on the committee, It may solve a lot of problems.
Nevertheless, the senate wants a safeguard in place to be sure that someone doesn’t get hired
without proper agreement/approval.
M. Burke motioned to reject as stated; CIO is final decision and not board. C. Tincher agrees that we
reject as is, or approve with corrections. J. Grant seconded, motion. Further discussion: R. Mayer
wondered if this has ever happened? Is it really necessary to make this differentiation? C. Cowden
mentioned that it indeed has happened. The Ag department approved an applicant to be equivalent in
welding, but the administration did not agree. Said applicant applied to many other colleges, was
granted equivalency by those colleges, and ultimately received a job at COS. R. Mayer wondered if
these individuals had been recruited by faculty from our college. C. Cowden said no; they may have
been phenomenal additions to our college, but we lost them. C. Tincher realized that administration
has decided against equivalency committee’s conclusions four times in the last year. C. Tincher
wondered if, at board meeting, J. Wanderer will explain to the board why senate did not approve. J.
Wanderer answered yes and added that reasoning will also be included in routing form:
The board should make the final decision on equivalency when there is disagreement between
administration and senate; this follows Ed Code.
No further discussion
Motion to reject as written, made by M. Burke, seconded by C. Tincher, approved unanimously.
9.0 Announcements
9.1 S. Droker and J. Wanderer will get together to work on accreditation teams and forward teams to area
reps.
10.0 Adjournment
10.1 Meeting adjourned at 12:45