Minutes of the

MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE

February 24, 2003

 

APPROVED

 

PRESENT:                             Mike Arguello, Chris Barkley, Bill Bedford, Mike Byron, Judy Cater, Judy Dolan, Bonnie Ann Dowd, MaryAnn Drinan, Teresa Laughlin, Stan Levy, Dennis Lutz, Mario Mendez, Maria Miller, Norton, Jose Rangel, Dan Sourbeer, Steve Spear, Joe Stanford, Sara Thompson, Rocco Versaci, Anne Voth

 

ABSENT:                               Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg, Fari Towfiq

 

GUESTS:                                Andrea Bell, Chris Chapparal, Anne Hohman, John Leahy, Shannon Lienhart, Linda Locklear, Pam McDonough, Fergal O’Doherty, Haryo Praborro, Jack Quintero, Perry Snyder, Don Viles, Steve Wozniak

                                               

CALL TO ORDER:               The meeting was called to order by the president, Chris Barkley, at 2:00 p.m., in Room SU-30.

 

Proxy Votes:                          Bonnie Ann Dowd announced the following proxy votes:

 

                                                Anne Voth is holding a proxy for Fari Towfiq

                                                Dan Sourbeer will be holding a proxy for Sara Thompson who has to leave early

                                                Stan Levy is holding a proxy for Bill Bedford who has to leave early

                                                Bonnie Ann Dowd is holding an abstain proxy for Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg

 

Approval of Minutes:         The minutes of February 10, 2003, were approved as amended.

 

Election Results:                  Stan Levy announced the results of the recent Senate elections:

                                                Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg was elected for a term through May, 2004           

Sue Norton was elected for a term through May, 2004

                                                Joe Stanford was elected for a term through May, 2004

 

                                                Marc Newman was also elected but will have to resign due to scheduling conflicts. Another call for nominations will be distributed in the next few days.

 

                                                In response to a question of how many faculty members voted, Stan Levy indicated that 82 faculty members participated in the electronic voting process, a number similar to the number of faculty who participate in the paper ballots. Discussion followed on accessing the site, as well as the security of online voting. This item will be placed on the March 3rd agenda and it was suggested that Chris Norcross, Academic Technology Support Specialist, be invited to attend the meeting to answer questions on this issue.

 

Committee

Appointments:

 

Motion 1                                MSC Dowd, Voth: Faculty Senate approval of the following committee appointments:

 

                                                Strategic Planning Council

                                                Steve Perry, CSIS

 

                                                Curriculum Committee

                                                Shannon Lienhart, Math

 

Motion 2                                MSC Dowd, Versaci: To suspend the agenda to address Information Item J, Confidentiality.

 

Confidentiality:                     Several faculty members were present to discuss the Confidentiality Statement they were being asked to sign before reviewing the Administrative Evaluations.

 

                                                One Senate member read the following statement:

 

                                                “The move by the Council to request signatures acknowledging that the Administrative Evaluations were confidential was not an attempt to withhold information. The simple fact is that evaluations are and always have been confidential just as your triennial evaluations are confidential. At the time I thought requiring signatures was a good idea and I’m now convinced more than ever that it is a good idea to require signatures and here’s why:

                                                I was very critical of Dr. Amador and one other administrator in the evaluations that I personally submitted and I want protection. Maybe I’m naïve but I do not trust the administration. There have been so many lawsuits, court filings, formal complaints, and other similar goings-on around here that I want to ensure that myself, the Senate, and the faculty are protected when we send our evaluations in to the administration and board. Further, I want my evaluation, critical as it was, to be taken seriously by the board. If we treat evaluations in a cavalier manner, it will reduce their effectiveness. By emphasizing that these are confidential matters, we accomplish several things: we maintain the uniformity of process. This body and its committees worked many hours to obtain a reasonable hiring policy that includes confidentiality statements. And I want to demonstrate to the board that we are serious about these evaluations and that we mean it when we state that we have specific complaints about how certain administrators are doing their jobs. In particular, that we expect changes in Dr. Amador’s behavior. Equally it is important to realize what requesting written acknowledgement does not do: it does not prevent people from reading the evaluations; it does not control the flow of information; it does not prohibit people who have read the documents from discussing them with one another, and it does not stifle free speech. All this accomplishes is stating that this is a serious matter and if we want actions taken as a result of these evaluations, everything needs to be legal and by the book.”

 

                                                Chris Barkley read the statement created by the Faculty Council that faculty members were being asked to sign before reviewing the evaluations: Please sign below to indicate your acceptance of the confidentiality of all evaluation materials.

 

                                                It was noted that faculty members are free to discuss the information they submitted, but cannot specifically state comments written by others. One individual suggested that if the Senate planned to change the current procedure to require a Confidentiality Statement, faculty members should have been notified prior to the process, not after. The consequences of violating such a policy should also be clearly stipulated.

 

                                                 Lengthy discussion followed.

 

Motion 3                                MSC Bedford, Dowd: Refer the issue of how and whether to use a Confidentiality Statement to the Personnel Standards & Practices Committee. The committee shall report back to the Senate in one week. In the meantime, prior practices relating to faculty members reviewing the evaluations will remain in place.

 

Motion 4                                MSC Dowd, Levy: To extend the meeting.

 

                                                Discussion also occurred on the analysis used in the evaluations. Bill Bedford indicated that the committee used the same process as in past years, and provided examples for Senate members.

 

                                                Chris Barkley indicated that she will meet with Dr. Amador on Wednesday, February 26, to present her evaluation as well as those of the Vice Presidents. She added that Dr. Amador’s evaluation will be presented to the Governing Board in closed session on March 11. Dr. Miyamoto indicated that there is a past precedent that only the Senate President presents the evaluations to the board. Members of the Senate disagreed with this, stating that one or more members of the Personnel Standards & Practices Committee have been present in the past to distribute the Superintendent/President’s evaluations in closed session.

 

Motion 5                                MS Versaci, Dowd: The Faculty Senate directs the Chair of the Personnel Standards & Practices Committee to deliver sealed copies of the Superintendent/President’s evaluation to the members of the Governing Board in advance of the March 11, 2003, meeting.

 

                                                Discussion followed on the motion, and some Senate members suggested that the Senate President present Dr. Amador with her evaluation first thing Tuesday February 25 and the evaluations be given to the board members at the February 25th meeting.

 

                                                The following substitute Motion was offered:

 

Motion 6                                MSC Drinan, Levy: The Faculty Senate directs the Faculty Senate President to deliver the Superintendent/President’s evaluation to her on Tuesday, February 25, 2003, and that sealed copies of her evaluation be given to members of the Governing Board at the board meeting of February 25, 2003.

 

DSP&S Cuts:                        Sue Norton discussed the possible movement on the part of the Governor and State Legislature to end categorical funding for departments such as DSP&S and EOPS and move such funding into the general fund. Categorical funding is not “special” funding. Rather, these funds are designated for mandated services which were established by the Lanterman Act of 1976. Contrary to beliefs held by some members of the administration, faculty members in these departments are regular employees, and, as such, have the same rights as faculty in other departments. Should categorical funding be folded into Palomar’s general funding, how that funding is allocated may be changed. This could mean that  services, including counseling, instruction, test accommodations, e.g., could be substantially curtailed.

 

 DSP&S is asking for Faculty Senate support in helping to prevent the dire cuts the Governor has proposed (approximately 40%) to DSP&S state-wide. Substantial cuts could mean that individual departments would have to provide test accommodations, including proctoring and sites, for the more than 600 students who now utilize our services. If this becomes reality, faculty would be legally responsible for providing the appropriate accommodations, which carries with it the chance of lawsuits if students feel they have not received fair treatment. Faculty and staff in DSP&S are experienced in dealing with students with disabilities and do not want this burden unfairly placed on faculty’s shoulders. DSP&S is asking that the Faculty Senate, as well as faculty members, correspond to our legislature about these concerns.

 

Chris Barkley stated that this item would be brought back for Senate action on March 3, 2003.

 

Curriculum:                            Teresa Laughlin provided the following Curriculum item:

 

                                                The following course has been reviewed by Subcommittee C of the Curriculum Committee and is recommended for approval to meet the Multicultural Course Requirement Effective Fall 2003:

 

                                                1.             HIST 141 History of the Americas Since 1800

 

Motion 7                                MSC Laughlin, Cater: Move Curriculum to Action.

 

Motion 8                                MSC Stanford, Cater: Faculty Senate ratification of HIST 141, History of the Americas Since 1800.

 

                                                There was some concern expressed on the process for passing this item. The Senate and the Board of Trustees should have voted upon the same document.  Assurance was given that this is the case.

Faculty Committee

Representation:                    A document outlining faculty representation on various committees was distributed for information.

 

                                                Senate members agreed that divisional-wide representation is needed on the Strategic Planning Council, Instructional Planning Council, Technology Committee, as well as the Educational and Facilities Master Planning Committee.

 

                                                This will be presented for Senate Action on March 3, 2003.

 

Motion 9                                MSC Sourbeer, Spear: To suspend the Agenda to discuss Information Item I., SERP.

 

Motion 10                              MSC Spear, Levy: Move discussion of SERP to Action.

 

                                                Mario Mendez reported that the members of Joint Council met on Wednesday, February 19th and discussed the Supplemental Early Retirement Plan (SERP). The district has proposed tying it to negotiating the full contract in order to offer the SERP. The Palomar Faculty Federation is hosting a meeting for faculty members on this and other issues on Wednesday, February 26th.

 

Motion 11                              MS Spear, Levy: The Faculty Senate, reflective of state mandated concerns with the overall fiscal status of the college and other academic matters enumerated in BP 2510, requests the district to support the Palomar Faculty Federation’s proposal regarding such plan. A separately considered SERP will save the district large sums of money in the coming years, enhance retiree’s incomes, improve faculty morale, increase staff diversity, reinvigorate academic programs, and enhance the overall climate of Palomar College.

 

                                                MaryAnn Drinan indicated that although the PFF greatly appreciates the Senate’s support, some wording in the motion may impinge on the area of what is required by EERA. She added that the PFF is presenting a counter offer to the district on Tuesday, February 25, and it will be released after it is reviewed by the district. There is nothing in law that requires the SERP to be part of a contract and it can be part of a separate agreement with the district because of its operational cost saving nature.

 

                                                Discussion followed on the Senate supporting the union in a productive way without involvement in the negotiating process.

 

Motion 12                              MSC Dowd, Miller: To Table Motion 11.

 

Proposed BP 3100

Organizational Structure:    This will be presented for Senate Action on March 3, 2003.

 

Proposed BP 3200

Accreditation:                       This will be presented for Senate Action on March 3, 2003.

 

Proposed BP 3250

Institutional Planning:         This will be presented for Senate Action on March 3, 2003.

 

Proposed BP 3280

Grants:                                   It was pointed out that the wording used in this proposed policy is not as specific as what is used in BP 311, particularly as it relates to grants that are internal to the general fund. The wording in the new procedure 3280 could be referring to other grants.

 

                                                Chris Barkley indicated that she would get clarification on the wording in the policy.

 

                                                This will be presented for Senate Action on March 3, 2003.

Proposed BP 3300

Public Records:                    This will be presented for Senate Action on March 3, 2003.

 

Faculty Rally:                        Chris Barkley asked Senators to consider participating in a rally being organized by students and other members of the college community to coincide with the rally in Sacramento on Monday, March 17th,  2003, in lieu of a Senate meeting.

 

                                                This will be presented for Senate Action on March 3, 2003.

 

ADJOURNMENT:               The meeting was adjourned at 3:56 p.m.

 

                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                Bonnie Ann Dowd, Secretary