Minutes of the

Minutes o= f the

FACULTY SENATE MEETING=

November 4, 2002=

<= /span>

APPROVED

PRES= ENT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mike Arguello, Chris Barkley, Bill Bedford, Mike Byron, Judy Cater, Judy Dolan, MaryAnn Drinan, Nancy Galli, Doug Key, Teresa Laughlin, Stan Levy, Dennis= Lutz, Maria Miller, Jose Rangel, Dan Sourbeer, Steve Spear, Sara Thompson, Fari Towfiq, Anne Voth, Tamara Weintraub, April Woods

ABSE= NT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mario Mendez

GUES= TS: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Sherr= ill Amador, Bonnie Ann Dowd, Deborah Dozier, Dan Finkenthal, Barb Kelber, Pam McDonough, Ruben Murcia, Jack Quintero, Rocco Versaci, Sean Weimer

CALL= TO ORDER: &= nbsp; The meeting was called to order by the president, Chris Barkley, at 2:02 p.m., in Room SU-30.

Appr= oval of Minutes: &n= bsp; The minutes of Octo= ber 28, 2002, were approved as amended.

Elec= tion Results: = ; = Stan Levy announced that as a result of the recent elections, Bonnie Ann Dowd and Rocco Versaci were elected to the Faculty Senate.

Facu= lty Hiring Poll: &= nbsp; Stan Levy reported the results of the recent poll on the Faculty Hiring Policy &= amp; Procedures:

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Just over 1/3 of faculty members responded to the poll.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 38 faculty members voted in support of the proposed changes to the Policy.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 36 faculty members voted in support of the proposed changes to the Procedure.<= o:p>

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 67 faculty members voted against the proposed changes to the Policy.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 71 faculty members voted against the proposed changes to the Procedure.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 17 ballots were not counted because they did not follow proper voting procedur= es.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

Moti= on 1 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Cater, Galli: To suspend the Agenda.

Impr= oving Faculty

Mora= le: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; = Dr. Amador was asked to discuss her management style and the role of faculty in decision making, as well as defining in her terms collegial, participatory,= and shared governance.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Dr. Amador stated that through the Strategic Planning Council we have a forum f= or all faculty, classified, and management to be part of the decision making process.~~, so that’= ;s the structure.~~ Within this s= tructure~~that~~ it becomes more specific in terms of an Instructional Planning Council, Student Services Planning Council, Administra= tive Services Council,~~which is mainly faculty, student services whi= ch is faculty~~ and a Huma= n Resources Planning Council.classified, administrative services, and human resources. Members of the Strategic Planning Council agreed what these<= /ins>~~those~~ structures would be. This forum basically addresses all college-wide issues= . ~~There are two structures used for faculty decision making and participation: Acad= emic & Professional Matters,~~

There = are two structures used for faculty deci= sion making~~which is in the purview of the Faculty Senate= ,~~ and participation: Academic & Professional Ma= tters, which, is in the purview of the Faculty Senate. Also existing is ~~the structure within~~ the Chairs and Deans struc= ture, which addresses <= del cite=3D"mailto:facultysenate" datetime=3D"2002-11-06T06:38">are operational issues but is currently~~. Still being w= orking on and~~ not yet defined due to= is contract negotiations. She stated that it is within these structures that she feels = she has been participating.

<= /span>

A discussion follo= wed on Palomar <= st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">College’s role in shared governance versus participatory decision making.

<= /span>

A Senate member expressed to Dr. Amador the overall concern among faculty with the low mora= le not only in their not being a= sked to participate in decision making, but the issue of mutual respect, and cha= nges being made too quickly. Faculty members, the Faculty Senate, and the member= s of the administration need to identify the barriers to good faculty morale, an= d explore ways~~then see if the= re is a way~~ we can overcome some of these barriers. This would allow Facul= ty to or work together with administration to either clarify issues if there are misunderstandings, or correct issues in which there is not ~~things if there aren’t misunderstandings but there isn’t that~~ mutual respect that, we believe, is due us. ~~we should have= .~~

<= /span>

A statement was ma= de by one Senator on the effect of zero-based bargaining, and the impression by m= any faculty members that this position does not support of improving salaries and working conditions, but th= at it is ~~not the possibility of~~ an attempt to increase faculty in workload with no pay increase. Additionally, it reflects a demand for ~~, or as a~~ department chairs being asked to do several more= tasks~~things~~, perhaps without a stipend. Departments may not even be able to participate in the process of choosing who their department chairs will be<= span class=3DmsoIns> which leads to~~. That gives~~ the impression of the administration as saying “you don’t even deserve what you already have; it’s all up for grabs.”

Dr. Amador was ask= ed “What do you say to faculty who believe that the change in the campus atmosphere = and morale is not really due to the presence of a union but rather to a belief = that faculty are being punished because they are part of a union or that a union= was created and therefore there have to be some steps taken because our managem= ent is ideologically opposed to unions. What would you say to that kind of belief?”

<= /span>

Dr. Amador indicat= ed that she is not opposed to unions. She stated that it makes it easier in the long run to manage~~run~~ a district. It is generally believed by all up and down the state that a first contract is difficult.

<= /span>

At the request of a Senator, Dr. Amador agreed that when a change is proposed, a statement will= be attached specifically stating how that change will increase and better education at Palomar College. Dr. Amador added that all proposals should go through the Strategic Planning Council process.

<= /span>

Additional discuss= ion followed on zero-based bargaining, a major contention among faculty, as wel= l as the negotiator being used by the district. Some faculty members have sugges= ted he be replaced due to the lack of progress being made.

<= /span>

Dr. Amador also sa= id, “Taking a first proposal and codifying what is in some standard is not what many districts would call ‘zero-based bargaining.’”<= o:p>

Motion 2&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; M Bedford: Move to the order of the day. Motion failed.

Motion 3&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Cater, Sourbeer: To extend the meeting.

In response to a question of what faculty members can expect from her as a leader, Dr. Amador stated that she needs to hear from faculty on “what good morale looks like.” Morale is defined as: “mental condition with respect to courage, discipline, confidence, enthusiasm, willingness to endure hardship, etc. within group, in relation to a group, or within an individual.” She added that she is very serious = when she asks, “how do we address what everyone’s perception is of g= ood morale?” She added that she has a responsibility to make sure that whatever we come up with will be the very best we can do in terms of remuneration, load, class size, and all of those things within the fiscal abilities of the district. In terms of the structure of the college, she st= ated that her goal is to have a structure that gives<= /ins>~~makes~~ us the best ~~we can do~~ for the student, classroom, and faculty, which<= /ins>~~that~~ we can afford; this would include~~. And with that,~~ reductions in administration.~~, and she is truly looking at doing that.~~ Some of the data currently= ~~being~~ used doesn’t correctly reflect what is occurring right n= ow. She also indicated her commitment to move forward with the Strategic Plan.<= o:p>

Chris Barkley i= ndicated that now that some of the specific issues have been raised, it is hoped tha= t a group including members of the Faculty Council, Joint Council Members, as w= ell as some PFF members to meet with administration to see if we can come up wi= th a plan on what can be done.

<= /span>

~~Chris Barkley i= ndicated~~It was noted that now th= at some of the specific issues have been raised, it is hoped that a group including members of the Faculty Council, Joint Council Members, as well as some PFF members will meet with administration to see if we can come up with a plan = on what can be done.

&= nbsp;

A sena= tor made a statement regarding the issue of faculty salaries and morale. It is hard = to believe that there is any justification for faculty to receive pay cuts in particular areas at a time in which, looking at the Chancellor’s webs= ite, and we use the Chancellor’s own materials to determine where Palomar College is in the lineup of the 72 community colleges, we find that we are = 50 out of 72 in three of the four core samples with regard to salaries. And no= w we find that we cannot progress in terms of negotiations because we are not willing to accept pay cuts in particular areas. We know that our part-timers are the lowest paid in all of San Diego County. When you look at the actual details of the pay issue, it seems hard to just= ify what rationale would support that kind of approach.

<= /span>

When Dr. Amador was asked if the Senate supports past practice with regard to hiring, would it = to be honored, and would hiring occur this year, she replied that the district would meet with the appropriate committee to discuss it.<= /p>

<= /span>

In closing, Dr. Am= ador stated her commitment to do the very best in developing a plan of action which is = in the best interests of all.

Committee

Appointments:

Moti= on 4 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Laughlin, Cater: Faculty Senate approval of the following committee appointment:

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Strategic Planning Council

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mike Arguello (for Judy Eberhart as Prof. Devel. Coordinator)<= /p>

Non-= Discrimination

Poli= cy Proposed

Chan= ges:

Moti= on 5 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MS Laughlin, Towfiq: Faculty Senate approval of the Non-Discrimination Policy proposed changes.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion occurred on the proposed changes to the document, particularly the wording related to academic freedom. Chris Barkley indicated that the Statewide Academic Senate has requested that the Chancellor’s Office include it= in its boiler plate information about these changes, particularly as they rela= te to Academic freedom. Senate members also agreed that a change should be made stating that “…the district must consult with the Faculty Senate…” rather than “…the district may consult with the Academic Senate…” in this passage.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; The PFF negotiations team did reach a tentative agreement on a basic statement regarding non-discrimination. When an agreement is TAed, this means that bo= th parties have accepted the proposal, and it will take effect when the entire contract has been negotiated.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; The agreement is as follows:

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; “The District and the Federation agree that the District, the Federation, and faculty members shall not illegally discriminate against any faculty member= on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, age, physica= l or mental disability, sex (including sexual harassment), sexual orientation, medical condition, marital status, political affiliation, veteran status, or protected union activities under the Education Employment Relations Act (EERA).”

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; The list above is more extensive than the listing in the policy that is current= ly under discussion in the Senate. A comparison of the 2 lists reveals some substantial differences.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; PFF list &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Senate’s list

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; race &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; race

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; religion &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; religion<= /span>

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; color &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; color

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; national origin &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; national origin

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; ancestry &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; ancestry

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; age &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; age

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; physical or mental disability = ; &n= bsp; = ; physical or mental disability (in

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; any program…state funded)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; sex (including sexual harassment) &n= bsp; = ; sex (no mention of sexual harass.)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; sexual orientation &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; sexual orientation

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; medical condition

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; marital status

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; political affiliation

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; veteran status

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; protected union activities (EERA)

Discussion followe= d on the need for policies to coincide with the agreements that the union has already signed off on.

Moti= on 5 (Amended) &nbs= p; MS Spear, Levy: The Faculty Senate accepts the proposed changes to the Non

Discrimination Pol= icy proposed changes as agreed to by the PFF ~~and that those= changes should be made to any policies that the Faculty Senate has input on~~.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion also occurred about whether a statement about fact-finding was necessary. It was suggested that the following wording be added: A standing committee composed of the Vice President of Human Resources, two faculty, two classif= ied staff, and an administrative association representative, will meet within t= wo weeks of a filing of a formal discrimination complaint. The committee will = plan the fact-finding portion of the process and meet as necessary to finish the= process within the required 90 days.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Senate members agreed that the document should be brought back for approval once a= ll of the proposed changes have been incorporated.

Moti= on 6 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Cater, Towfiq: To ~~Table~~postpone<= /span> Motion 5 until = November 18, 2002.

Curr= iculum: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Copies of the Curriculum Consent Calendar approved by the Curriculum Committee on = October 23, 2002, was distributed to Senate members last week.

Moti= on 7 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Laughlin, Cater: Faculty Senate ratification of the work of the Curriculum Committee.

Facu= lty Hiring Policy

& Procedures: &n= bsp; = ; Due to the results of the faculty opinion poll on the proposed changes to the Faculty Hiring Procedures, Senate members agreed that the document should be forwarded to the Professional Procedures Committee for further work.

Moti= on 8 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Key, Woods: That the Faculty Hiring Policy & Procedures be forwarded to= the Professional Procedures Committee.

Facu= lty Advocacy: &nbs= p; The primary change in the draft of the Faculty Advocacy draft was in the langua= ge, indicating that any senator that applies for an administrative posit= ion will be a nonvoting member if the timeline is 45 days or less, and must res= ign if the timeline is more than 45 days.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; This will be presented for Senate action on November 18, 2002.

Educ= ational &

Faci= lities Master

Plan= ning Task

Force Meeting: = ; &n= bsp; Doug Key reminded those present of the Educational & Facilities Master Plann= ing Task Force meeting on Thursday, November 7, 2002, 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. in the Governing Board room. He reported that= the task force has been primarily involved in developing departmental plans as = well as future plans for meeting the number of students we will need to accommod= ate over the next 20 years.

Stat= ewide Academic

Sena= te: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Chris Barkley reported that she and Teresa Laughlin attended the Statewide Academ= ic Senate meeting October 30 – November 2^nd. The Statewide Academic

Senate did take a = stand about having faculty members as department chairs rather than administrator= s or division deans and in support of maintaining a faculty member/counselor as Transfer Center Director. Lengthy discussion occurred on the new Accreditat= ion standards, which Palomar will face in approximately 6 years if they are uph= eld.

<= /span>

Copies of all the resolutions are available for review in the Senate office.

ADJO= URNMENT: &= nbsp; The meeting was adjourned at 3:= 48 p.m.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Respectfully submitted,

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; April Woods, Secretary

<= /span>