MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Location: file:///C:/9D694634/fsm51004.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Minutes of the

Minutes o= f the

MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE

May 10, 2004=

 <= /span>

APPROVED

 

PRES= ENT:        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;        Rosie Antonecchia, Bill Bedford, Monika Brannick, Judy Cater, Bonnie Ann Dowd,  Martha Evans, Sherry Gordon, Brent Gowen, Anne Hohman, Barb Neault Kelber,&nb= sp; Doug Key, Teresa Laughlin, Stan Levy, Maria Miller, Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg, Sue Norton, Fari Towfiq, Katie Townsend-Merino, Rocco Versa= ci, Lori Waite

 

ABSE= NT:        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;          Bob Gilson

 

GUES= TS:        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           Judy Crowe, Berta Cuaron, Judy Dolan, MaryAnn Drinan, Daniel Finkenthal, Julie I= vey, Robert Jones, Shannon Lienhart, Karen Mifflin, Jennifer Paris, Susan Snow, Steve Spear, Annette Squires, Sara Thompson, Anne Voth

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

CALL= TO ORDER:      &= nbsp;        The meeting was called to order by the secretary, Bonnie Ann Dowd, at 2:00 p.m., in Room SU-30.

 <= /span>

Election of Faculty

Senate Officers:

 

Election of Faculty

Senate President:     &nb= sp;           Katie Townsend-Merino was nominated and accepted the nomination.

 

Moti= on 1        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           MSC Laughlin, Versaci: The Faculty Senate appoints Katie Townsend-Merino as Faculty Senat= e President by acclamation.

 <= /span>

Election of Facult= y

Senate Vice Presid= ent:         = Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg was nominated and accepted the nomination.=

 <= /span>

Moti= on 2        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           MSC Dowd, Cater: The Faculty Senate appoints Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg as Faculty Senate Vice President by acclamation.

 <= /span>

Election of Facult= y

Senate Secretary:<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;        Bonnie Ann Dowd was nominated and accepted the nomination.

 <= /span>

Moti= on 3        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           MSC Laughlin, Versaci: The Faculty Senate appoints Bonnie Ann Dowd as Faculty Senate Secretary by acclamation.

 

Elec= tion of Past President

of t= he Faculty Senate:    &nbs= p;    Sherry Gordon was nominated and accepted the nomination.

 

Moti= on 4        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           MSC Versaci, Gowen: The Faculty Senate appoints Sherry Gordon as Faculty Council Designate for Past President of t= he Faculty Senate.

 

Proxy Votes:      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;       Bonnie Ann Dowd announced the following proxy vote:

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Doug Key holding a proxy for Fari Towfiq after 3:00 p.m.

 

Appr= oval of Minutes:     &n= bsp;   Doug Key asked that the discussion in the May 3, 2004, minutes relating to due process be remo= ved because of confidentiality issues. Bonnie Dowd stated that, as Faculty Senate Secretary, she felt that becaus= e the remarks had been made in the meeting’s open session she didn’t = see how the minutes could not reflect what had been discussed.  Bonnie suggested that perhaps today’s meetings should reflect today’s discussion that perhaps some statements at last week’s meeting should not have taken place in open session.

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  The minutes of May 3,= 2004, were approved as amended.

 

Welc= ome:        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         Rosa Antonecchia, Bill Bedford, Monika Brannick, Bonnie Dowd, Robert Gilson, She= rry Gordon, Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg, and Sue Norton are the newly elected Senato= rs with terms through May, 2006.

Stra= tegic Planning

Coun= cil:        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            Bonnie Dowd reported that the members of the Strategic Planning Council tabled BP = 111- Hate Speech/Abusive Conduct because there had not been any previous discuss= ion by the Senate. SPC did take action on Procedure 6536, Equipment Replacement, which the Senate acted on several weeks ago. The Student Learning Outcomes = Task Force configuration recommendations were also accepted.

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Budget reinstatement proposals from each of the planning councils were brought for= ward along with a reinstatement proposal by Dr. Amador that showed a change in t= he percent of reassigned time for the various Student Learning Outcomes Coordinators. The original proposal was for 1.3 FTE (50% for the co-chair a= nd four 20% positions for coordinators). The amended proposal reduces reassign= ed time to .8. Lengthy discussion occurred at SPC about the change, and concern was expressed by the Faculty representatives on SPC that the change was made with no prior discussion with the Faculty leadership as the SLO Task Force = was co-chaired by Dr. Amador and Barb Kelber-Nault.  SPC decided that the FTE for the fa= ll semester will remain at 1.3.  However, once PFF and the district = come to a contract agreement and/or based on final budget, all of the reassigned time positions are subject to change.

 

Reve= nue Allocation

Comm= ittee:        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;       Copies of the recommended plan of action relating to budget development for fiscal year 04-05 and 05-06 were provided.

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  The budget estimate reflects the best estimate for ending fund balances for FY 03-04 through FY 05-06, with the Governor’s January budget projections for community colleges with the exception of equalization which is projected at $25 M.

=  

= ·      =     FY 03-04 ending fund balances will end up around $7.9 - $8.2M due to cost reductions during the year (primarily vacant faculty/classified positions).=

= ·      =     FY 04-05 ending fund balances will end up around $3.5M.

= ·      =     FY 05-06 ending fund balances will end up around a negative $500 – 700,0= 00.

= ·      =     The problem is spending more than we receive.

 

To prevent a diffic= ult correction in FY 05-06, the budget will require a significant increase in revenues or a significant decrease in expenditures for the College over the next two years. A significant increase in revenues is most likely not to ha= ppen given the state’s economy, leaving the expenditure side of the budget= at risk.

 

The college must de= velop a strategy and plan of action that has its genesis by its employees through= the current governance structure. To be successful and have acceptance by all employee groups, employees need to have ownership of such a plan.

 

Recommendation: Add= two members from each Planning Council to Resource Allocation Committee and let= RAC begin deliberations immediately to develop a plan before October 30, 2004 to recomme= nd to SPC, the President, and the Governing Board for a two-year phase to be accomplis= hed prior to June 30= , 2006.

 

Rese= arch Award:      &= nbsp;           The Task Force appointed to review the submissions for the Research Award are r= ecommending that two individuals receive the recognition this year. Karen Huffman and J= ohn Tanner have been selected as this year’s recipient. The committee made their decision, in part, based on the following:

= ·      =    The works were by a single author.

= ·      =    The materials demonstrated an investigative nature.

= ·      =    The works are specifically related to the author’s field or directly rela= ted to instruction.

 

Moti= on 5        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           MSC Norton, Bedford: The Faculty Senate accepts Karen Huffman and John Tanner a= s the 2004 Research Award recipients.

 

Moti= on 6        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           MSC Dowd, Versaci: To extend the meeting until 3:45 p.m.

 

Facu= lty Senate Motion

on e= mails:        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         Doug Key referred to discussion held at the May 5 faculty meeting regarding the Senate’s motion of April 26 asking for copies of a faculty memberR= 17;s email. It was agreed to at that meeting that a poll should be conducted in = the fall, with language asking if faculty agree, as a body, that the California Public Records Act does not have reach at this level. Based on that discuss= ion as well as many faculty members having expressed their concern with the Senate’s recent action, he made the following motion:

 

Moti= on 7        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           MSF Key, Towfiq: The Faculty Senate rescinds Motion 5 of the April 26, 2004, minutes asking for copies of a faculty member’s email based on the fact that the Faculty and the Faculty Senate will be looking at this issue in the fall semester. Motion failed.

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Discussion followed on whether the Senate should wait to see how the district responds= to the letter versus rescinding the motion.

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Sara Thompson added that, as instructed by the Senate, she did take the Senate’s motion to obtain copies of the emails to Jerry Patton and the Senate should have a response within 10 days.

Comm= ittee

Appo= intments:

 

Moti= on 8        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           MSC Dowd, Cater: Faculty Senate approval of the following committee appointment= s:

 

North County Higher Educat= ion Alliance (NCHEA) representative

Freddie Ramirez, E= OPS

 

Learning Outcomes = Task Force 50% position

Barb Neault Kelber=


Learning Outcomes Task Force

Teresa Laughlin (2= 0% position - representative for Curriculum)

Brent Gowen (20% position - representative for Senate Representative)

Larry Roberts (20% position – faculty member at-large)

Deborah Paes de Ba= rros (20% position – faculty member at-large)

 <= /span>

Curr= iculum:        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;       Copies of the following Curriculum items were provided for review:

            =             &nb= sp;            =            = A. New Courses=

1. Course Number: AJ 97

Long Course Title: Topics in Administration of Justice

Short Course Title: Topics in Admin of Justice

Discipline(s): Administration of Justice

Requisite validated: N/A

Discipline for Minimum Qualifications: Administration of Justice

A.A. degree and certificate program (s):

Elective course in Administration of Justice – Law Enforcement

Allow Multiple Enrollments: No

General Education category: N/A

Distance Learning offering(s): N/A

Effective: Fall 2004

AJ 97 Topics in Administration of Justice

Units awarded in topics courses are dependent upon the number of hours required of the

student. Any combination of lecture, laboratory or lecture/laboratory may be schedul= ed

by the department. Refer to class schedule. (.5 – 20 units)

Topics in Administration of Justice. See Class Schedule for specific topic offered= .

Course title will designate subject covered. Graded only. May be taken 4 times.=

 

B. Program Changes

1. Program Title: Administration of Justice – Law Enforcement=

Discipline(s): Administration of Justice (AJ)

Catalog Page(s): 69 - 72

Effective Term: Fall 2004

Administration of Justice - Law Enforcement

Courses required for an A.A. Degree Major

Required Courses Units

AJ 100 Introduction to Criminal Justice 3

AJ 101 Criminal Evidence 3

AJ 102 Criminal Procedures 3

AJ 103 Community Relations 3

AJ 104 Criminal Law 3

AJ 110 Basic Criminal Investigation 3

AJ 115 Patrol Procedures 3

AJ 131 Juvenile Justice 3

AJ 180 Criminology 3

CE 100 Cooperative Education 3

Electives (Select 6 units)

AJ 97 Topics in Administration of Justice .5-20

AJ 135 Traffic Control 3

AJ 140 Criminal Justice in the

21st Century-Field Study 2.5

AJ 175 Narcotics 3

AJ 197 Topics in Administration of Justice .5-6

AJ 210 Basic Crime Scene Forensic Science 3

AJ 211 Fingerprint Identification 3

AJ 296 Special Projects 1,2,3

TOTAL UNITS 36

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

            =             &nb= sp;            =            = Proposed Noncredit = Course Approval Process

California Education Code for noncredit curriculum is restrictive in that it does not = allow for creation of a temporary course. This process will permit the scheduling= of a new noncredit course within a shorter timeframe than the standard curricu= lum timeline.

· Submit course simultaneously to Curriculum Committee and to Chancellor’s Office for approval

· Upon approval by Curriculum Committee and Chancellor’s Office, class may be scheduled in the next available ter= m

Approved, Curriculum Committee 5/5/04


Draft

 

CURRICULUM COMMITTEE=

 

Role

The Curriculum Committee shall be the preeminent body for the development and recommendation of curricular policy= to include philosophy, goals, strategic and long-range planning. The Curriculum Commit= tee shall coordinate, evaluate and review the college curricula to encourage innovation and excellence in instruction.

 

Reporting Relationship

• Faculty Senate for ratification of its action and then via the Vice President for Instruction and the Superintendent/President to the Governing Board.

 

Members

• Four faculty representatives from each = of the following divisions:

Arts and Languages and Literat= ure; Human Arts and Social and Behavioral Sciences;

Mathematics and the Natural and Health Sciences;<= /span>

Arts, Media, Business and Community Serv= ices Computing Systems; and

Vocational Technology Career, Technical, and Extended Education.

• Vice President, Instruction (Co-Chair)<= o:p>

• All Instructional Deans

• Faculty Senate Representative (Co-Chair= )

• Faculty Representative from Library

• Faculty Representative from Student Services

• Articulation Officer<= /p>

• Representatives from appropriate areas = will be solicited and appointed by the Senate.

• Student Liaison from ASG (observer)<= /s>( advisory vote)

• Members will serve a three-year term with 1/3 of the membership confirmed each year.

 

A. Tasks<= /p>

It shall be the responsibility of the co-chairs to keep matters of strategic and long-range planning before the Curriculum Committee. Each fall semester, the co-chairs shall identify the = strategic planning goals for the year and shall produce a report for Committee review= no later than the last meeting of the year on goals met. In addition, the philosophy and goals of the college shall be reviewed annually from the perspective of the College Curriculum Committee.

1. Approval of new instructional, AA Degree, Certificate and Continuing Education programs.

a. Reviews proposed programs to determi= ne consistency with educational master plan

b. Prevents unnecessary duplication and overlap among programs and courses.

c. Validates transfer and vocational programs in terms of educational and employment opportunities

2. Approval of new courses for inclusio= n in the College Catalog.

a. Edits language of catalog descriptio= n

b. Validates appropriate unit value

c. Assigns placement within Associate Degree and CSU GE requirements

d. Approves placement within AA and Certificate Programs

e. Approves course prerequisites and co-requisites

f. Approves basic skills entrance requirements

g. Approves dual- and cross-listings

h. Validates appropriateness of transfer and vocational courses

i. Approves course syllabi

j. Prevents unnecessary duplication and= overlap among courses

k. Monitors consistency of course numbe= rs

3. Approval of changes to existing prog= rams and courses in keeping with 1 and 2 above.

4. Approval of deletions of courses and programs from the College Catalog.

5. Establishes procedures for, and cond= ucts a periodic review of, programs and courses.

a. Develops criteria for a timely and systematic review of syllabi

b. Annually reviews courses inactive fo= r two four years

c. Receives the annual report of the Articulation Officer

6. Recommends college-wide academic performance standards including, but not limited to:

a. Graduation requirements

b. Minimum academic qualifications and standards for:

(1) Basic skills courses Math and English=

(2) AA Degree applicable courses

(3) Non-AA Degree applicable courses

(4) Continuing Education courses

c. Writing Across the Curriculum

d. Reading Across the Curriculum

e. Critical Thinking Across the Curricu= lum

7. Establishes standing and/or ad hoc committees as needed.

Tasks not listed under a subcommittee are the responsibility= of the Curriculum Committee as a whole.

 

B. Subcommittees

Membership to the subcommittees shall be appointed by the Co= -Chairs maintaining the balance and continuity reflected in the membership of the Curriculum Committee as a whole. The tasks

identified above shall be accomplished through the following= subcommittees:

Subcommittees Al, A2 - Course and Program Approval Committees (Two parallel committees)

Committee of the whole: Discipline Specific Curriculum Specialists  The Discipline Sp= ecific Curriculum Specialists  are fa= culty members of the curriculum committee that assist with curriculum changes and reviews.

Duties apply to all new courses, programs, and changes in existing courses and programs:

1. Prevents unnecessary duplication and overlap among progra= ms

2. Approves placement within AA and Certificate Programs

3. Approves dual and cross-listings

4. Develops criteria for a timely and systematic review of <= s>Syllabi Course outline of Record

5. Edits language of catalog description and syllabi = Course outline of Record

6. Approves course syllabi

6. Recommends college-wide academic performance standards including, but not limited to:

(a) Writing Across the Curriculum<= /o:p>

(b) Reading Across the Curriculum<= /o:p>

(c) Critical Thinking Across the Curric= ulum

7. Monitors consistency of course numbers<= /p>

8. Validates appropriate unit value

9. Approves course prerequisites and co-requisites

10. Approves discipline assignments for the purpose of<= /o:p>

establishing minimum qualifications.

11. approves distance learning offerings.<= /u>

 

Subco= mmittee B – General Education and Standards Subcommittee

 

Duties:

Assigns placement of new courses within Associate Degree, and CSU GE requirements and IGETC.<= /o:p>

Approves basic skills entrance requirements.  Approves changes to existing cou= rses with respect to assigning placement within Associate Degree, CSU GE and IGE= TC.

Receives the annual report from the Articulation Officer. Approves changes to existing programs and cou= rses with respect to:

assigning placement within Associate Degree and C= SU GE requirements.

Approving placement within AA and Certificate Pro= grams

Approves basic skills entrance requirements<= /o:p>

Receives the annual report from the Articulation Officer.  Re= commends college-wide academic performance standards including, but not limited to:<= s>

Graduation requirements<= /p>

Minimum academic qualifications and standards for= :

Basic skills course  Math and English (bas= ic skills)

AA Degree applicable courses

Non-degree applicable courses

Continuing Education courses

Certificate Programs

Recommends college-wide academic performance stan= dards including, but not limited to:

Graduation requirements

Minimum academic qualifications and standards for= :

Basic skills course  Math and English (basic skills)

AA Degree applicable courses

Non-degree applicable courses

Continuing Education courses

Certificate Programs

=  

Subcommittee C - Curriculum Planning Subcommittee

Duties to approve:

1. Reviews proposed programs to determi= ne consistency with educational master plan

2. Validates transfer and vocational programs in terms of educational and employment opportunities

3. Validates appropriateness of transfer and vocational courses

4. Approves changes to existing programs and courses with respect to validating appropriateness of transfer and voca= tional courses

5. Recommends college-wide academic performance standards including, but not limited to:<= /p>

(a) Writing Across the Curriculum<= /o:p>

(b) Reading Across the Curriculum<= /o:p>

(c) Critical Thinking Across the Curric= ulum

6. Annually reviews courses inactive for two years

6. 1. Multicultural courses

2. Issues dealing with distance learnin= g

3. Student learning outcomes activities=

4. Equivalency for multicultural course= s.

5. Other issues as assigned<= /span>

            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;      

C. Procedure<= /b>

Any proposal will proceed through the following channels:

• Program/Depar= tment, Division Dean, one of the A Subcommittees  Discipline Specific Curriculum Specialists  (assigned by = the Faculty Co-Chair), simultaneously to Subcommittees B and C, Curriculum Co-Chairs, Main Curriculum Committee, Faculty S= enate, Vice President for Instruction, Superintendent/President, Governing Board.<= o:p>

• It is recomme= nded that each subcommittee process proposals within a two-week time period. All proposals shall be first considered by one of the A subcommittees wi= th the corrected syllabi. Proposals will be assigned by the faculty co-chair. Based on the discipline specialist’s assignment.

• If a problem = is identified, it shall be the responsibility of the subcommittee  Discipline Specific Curriculum Specialists  to contact the department chairperson/director. There should be thorough=

communication between subcommittees<= /s> Discipline Specific Curriculum Specialists  and department representatives. Departments should be given direction and assistance from the subcommittees Discipline Specific Curriculum Specialists  for any needed modifications to their proposals. It shall be the responsibility of the department chairperson/director to return corrected proposals to the approp= riate subcommittee. Discipline Specific Curriculum Specialists  In the event that a difference= of opinion exists between the subcommittee Discipline Specific Curriculum Specialists  and department, the proposal shall proceed either to the next subcommittee o= r to the Curriculum Committee as a whole (whichever is next = in line), via the Instruction Office, with the

subcommittee's Discipline Specific Curriculum Specialists  written recommendations attach= ed. The Curriculum Committee as a whole shall have responsibility for recommend= ing approval to the

Governing Board via the Faculty Senate. It shall be the responsibi= lity of the faculty co-chair to facilitate this procedure. rev. PAC 5-18-99

 

Motion= 9        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           MSC Laughlin, Cater: Faculty Senate ratification of the work of the Curriculum Committee.

&= nbsp;

Motion= 10        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MSC Brannick, Versaci: To suspend the agenda to address action item H, TERB Procedures.

&= nbsp;

TERB Procedures:     &n= bsp;          The following repo= rt was given by Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg, Chair of the Professional Procedures Commi= ttee on behalf of members: Bonnie Ann Dowd, Sue Norton, Jennifer Paris and Rocco Versaci.

 

Timeline:

 

TERB elections of 2002 first appeared on the Senate agenda as an Information ite= m on January 26, 2004= .

 

TERB procedures first appeared as an Information item on the February 9, 2004 Senate agen= da. 

 

The Senate meeting ended with a request that TERB Procedures be brought back for Action on March 1= , 2004. The March 1st Senate meeting resulted in two actions…Motio= n 9 which requested that TERB evaluate its Coordinator and that copies of the T= ERB Annual Reports for the last four years be sent to the Senate.

 

At its March 8th meeting, the Senate heard testimony from several individuals including the TERB Coordinator and V.P. Miyamoto with no action taken.

 

TERB procedures remained on the Senate agenda as a “pending” action = item until March 29, = 2004 when Motion 9 directed the Professional Procedures Committee as follows:

 

MSC Versaci, Hohman: U= nder Faculty Senate Committees Article V, Section VI, Subsection E, the Faculty Senate directs the Professional Procedures Committee to determine within two weeks if a hearing is appropriate to investigate allegations of irregularit= ies surrounding Monika Brannick and Daniel Finkenthal’s most recent Tenure Evaluation.

 

Committee statement with accompanying report:<= /p>

 

The Professional Proce= dures Committee has attempted to respond to the Senate’s action directive.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>  However, due to the unprecedented = nature of such a request the committee first met to come to agreement as to how to proceed. It was decided that it was probably best to meet with Monika Brann= ick and Daniel Finkenthal.  We did= in fact do so and both stated that while they had concerns regarding their own personal evaluation, their main motivation was to ensure that the concerns = were addressed and that similar issues did not arise for other faculty members in the peer evaluation process.  = After the committee met with each of them, the committee sent emails to individua= ls identified to the best of our abilities that might have information related= to either evaluation soliciting any information they could recall.  Emails were sent because of the nu= mber of individuals involved and the limited time available so close to the end = of a semester.  <= /p>

 

The committee also met= a number of times to review the policy and procedure in great details and the responses obtained from other individuals in addition to the concerns of Mo= nika and Daniel.  It became clear t= o the committee that it could not respond to the Senate in the two weeks requested.  This was reported = to the Senate along with a statement that a report from the committee would be mad= e to the Senate on May 3rd that included concerns/issues related to b= oth policy and procedure 173. 

 

The committee believed= that any discussion related to the policy and procedure required an open discuss= ion at the Senate as it was clear to us after reviewing both policy and procedu= re that inconsistencies and vagueness exist in both.  TERB was invited to attend the May= 3rd Senate meeting but were unable to do so as they had a TERB meeting schedule= d at 3:00 pm.  The committee was not aware of this until the Senate meeting began.

 

The Professional Proce= dures Committee members present were uncomfortable with giving a report without a= ll parties present.  We attempted= to give our report but for various reasons we were only able to read the first couple of items.  <= /span>

 

It was agreed that the report even though it had not been given in its entirety would be entered i= nto the record of the May 3rd meeting but that it would be given at = the May 10th Senate meeting.

 

The Professional Proce= dures Committee Chair and the Senate Secretary met with V.P. Cuaron and the outgo= ing (Anne Voth) and incoming (Judy Crowe) TERB Coordinator to stress the import= ance of their and the entire TERB attending the May 10th Senate meeti= ng.

 

The Senate has a copy = of the report in its unapproved minutes of May 3rd.  We respectfully request that the committee be given an opportunity to give its complete report today, follow= ed by a response from TERB representatives.&n= bsp; Then after both reports have been given that questions be posed to t= he Professional Procedures Committee and TERB members present followed by ques= tions from guests regarding the items reported.&= nbsp; This is not an attempt to limit discussion but an attempt to ensure = that the work of the committee and its full report is brought forward.

 

Copies of the format for discussion were provided. Marilee provided the following highlights of the committee’s report:

 

·          Policy and procedure 173 both state that policies and procedures related to TERB h= ave been developed in accordance with Education Code through AB1725 and Palomar Board Policy 173. The BP 173 states “Revisions to the Tenure and Evaluations Policy and Procedures are considered to be an Academic and Professional Matter.” (page 72)

 

Bonnie Dowd added that AB1725 was passed into legislation in the 1980’s. The legislation states: “The clear goal of AB1725 is increased involvement for the Academic Senates, particularly the in the Faculty Hiring and Evalua= tion areas. The specific processes to be used are left up to the boards to deter= mine and implement. In essence, the Statewide Board of Governors has given local boards the first opportunity to strengthen their local senates. That means = to do that they will vary from district to district and that is perfectly appropriate. There is no way to implement the shared governance provisions = nor does AB1725 require any specific method or procedure. Predefined models, whether from statewide organizations or other districts, may not meet the specific needs of a particular district. Therefore, local boards and senates must fashion increased cooperation and shared decision-making based on each district’s particular history and style.”

 

Bonnie pointed out that it is important for Senators and guests to realize that in Board Policy 173 it states clearly that our TERB process is an Academic and Professional Matter. It is not quite as clear in the procedure, but policy drives procedure. It is also important for everyone to remember that Board Policy 4.5 says that the Palomar College Governing Board took the position under AB1725 to rely upon the Faculty Senate regarding matters that were academic and professional. She added that the committee is reiterating this statement because there have been several conversations about whether or not this is an academic and professional mat= ter or a negotiable issue. It is very important for us to be very clear as we m= ove forward as to what issues are related to PFF and what issues are related to= the Academic Senate and to make sure that this procedure is faculty driven.

 

Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg provided additional clarification on TERB:=

 

Procedure 173 indicates that TERB (i.e., the Board itself) is a standing operational committee reporting to the Superintendent/President (page 81). The BP 173 states that Tenure and Evaluations Policy and Procedures are considered to = be an Academic and Professional Matter which then places this under the purvie= w of the Faculty Senate (page 28). The job description of the coordinator states that the coordinator reports administratively to the VP of Instruction (page 82).

 

Definitions of faculty are not the same as definitions used in approved versions of the Faculty Constitution. (Recommend that definitions be consistent between documents.) (page 72)

 

TERB procedures were developed in categories with specific procedures for each faculty group: Procedures for Peer Review of Tenured Faculty; Procedures for Evaluation Review of Temporary and Non-Tenure Track Faculty and Procedures = for Adjunct Faculty. It is important to note that all categories do not follow = the exact same procedure. However all three have a step process with regard to deadlines that implies a “collegial process” including resoluti= on rather than a punitive process (pages 72-82). All of the steps are done thr= ough the committee chair.

 

In addition, if peer reviews for tenured faculty are not in on time (page 78; = see process under Section F, Peer, last paragraph), the TERB coordinator is to contact the peer committee chair. The TERB coordinator, Committee Chair, and evaluee will meet to set new deadline dates. Throughout the entire process,= it does not state that a dean is notified or involved in extending the deadlin= es.

 

The categories of probationary faculty and temporary and non-tenured track faculty may challenge either the randomly selected faculty member= of the faculty member selected by the department. (Page 74, Section B) However, the same provision does not exist for tenured faculty in procedure 1= 73 (page 76, Section B). The major reason for the difference with the tenur= ed faculty is because the department chair designates him/herself or a designee as committee chair and the evaluee chooses the other members or as= ks TERB to select a second committee member. There is no provision in any of t= he faculty groups for the evaluee to challenge the department chair or designe= e.

 

According to procedure 173, TERB will “critically review all probationary facul= ty evaluations that results in an overall rating of needs improvement or unsatisfactory evaluations”; however, there is no statement to indica= te that TERB reviews only substandard evaluations (page 81, A – however, this statement is repeated several times in other sections).<= /o:p>

 

The TERB will review evaluations of tenure faculty in the following circumstances: overall rating of needs improvement or unsatisfactory; commi= ttee refers evaluation to TERB and the dean refers to TERB…however, the th= ird circumstance is only if inconsistencies in the process exists (page 81, Item B). There is no statement to indicate that TERB reviews only substan= dard evaluations. (Page 81, Item B)

 

According to Section F, Item 4, additional material based upon “significant personal experience” may be presented to the committee chair for inclusion in the evaluation; however, the material must be submitted by the deadline. In addition, all information must be reviewed by the entire peer committee before the deadline (page 78 for Peer – however, this issue= is repeated within each evaluation process).

 

TERB must convene each fall and spring to adopt its calendar for semester due da= tes (page 73).

 

Section G (page 78) states that the evaluee will have access to all information use= d in the evaluation process.

 

Faculty members being evaluated “may initiate due process proceedings at any time.” (TERB, page 78, Section G, last sentence – Also, this statement is repeated several times in other sections).

 

It appears that faculty sign their evaluation before the TERB Coordinator, Dean and V.P. Instruction rather than the faculty member under evaluation signing after all signatures and statements have been collected.<= /p>

 

Board must meet 2/month to “discuss and act on requests for changes to the written evaluation plan, to annually review and revise, if necessary, the policy and procedures on tenure and evaluation…and to consider proble= ms, complaints, and concerns of the faculty” (TERB duties, page 81, Secti= on A)

 

Page 82, Section C (last paragraph) at least 6 members of TERB and the coordinat= or must be present if decisions regarding tenure or evaluation reports are mad= e.

 

The TERB Coordinator must write a yearly report; however, the procedure does not state specifically who the report is given to (Page 82, duties of coordinat= or).

 

Evaluations of the coordinator are conducted yearly; however, the procedure does not st= ate specifically who the evaluations are given to. (Page 82, Item C, evaluation= of coordinator.)

 

Anne Voth distributed copies of Article 17, Evaluations Procedure, which will go into effect when the district has a contract with PFF. She also provided co= pies of flowcharts she had prepared outlining the current arrangement relating to implementing TERB policies and procedures.=   In addition, she discussed how she interprets policies and procedures will be implemented once a contract is in effect.

 

She provided the following report to the Senate:

 

May 10, 2004<= /p>

 

TO:        &= nbsp; Faculty Senate

FROM:     Anne Voth, TERB Coordinator

SUBJ:       Respo= nse to Committee’s comments

 

Policy and procedure 173 both state that policies and procedures related to TERB have been developed in accordance w= ith Education Code through AB1725 and Palomar Board Policy 173.  The BP173 states “Revisions = to the Tenure and Evaluations Policy and Procedures are considered to be an Academ= ic and Professional Matter.” (page 72)

            =             &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           =

See flow charts

 

Procedure 173 indicates that the TERB (i.e.,= the Board itself) is a standing operational committee reporting to the Superintendent/President (page 81).  The BP 173 states that Tenure and Evaluations Policy and Procedur= es are considered to be an Academic and Professional Matter which then places this under the purview of the Faculty Senate (page 28).  The job description of the coordin= ator states that the coordinator reports administratively to the VP of instructi= on (page 82).

 

Under Article 17 th= e TERB will no longer report to the President and the TERB Coordinator reports directly to the VPI.

 

Correction: BP 173 = states that “Revisions to the Tenure and Evaluations Policy and Procedures a= re considered to an Academic and Professional Matter”<= /p>

 

Under Article 17 “TERB shall develop all tenure and evaluation procedures, standards a= nd forms with the purpose of ensuring that faculty evaluations are accurate, f= air, and equitable. The standards, forms, and procedures developed by the TERB s= hall be submitted to the Federation and District for approval. The Federation sh= all consult with the Faculty Senate regarding any substantial change in the standards, forms or procedures. The forms in use during the 2001-2002 acade= mic year appear in Appendix AA of this Agreement and shall remain in force until changed as provided in this paragraph.”

 

Definitions of faculty are not the same as definitions used in approved version of the Faculty Constitution. (Recommend that definitions be consistent between documents.) (page 72)

 

            =             &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           Defin= itions of faculty are not in Article 17.

 

TERB procedures were developed in categories with specific procedures for each faculty group: Procedures for Peer Review= of Tenured Faculty; Procedures for Evaluation Review of Temporary and Non-Tenu= re Track Faculty and Procedures for Adjunct Faculty.  It is important to note that all categories do not follow the exact same procedure.  However all three have a step proc= ess with regard to deadlines that implies a “collegial process” including resolution rather than a punitive process (pages 72-82).  All of the steps are done through = the committee chair.  <= /span>

 

Procedures for Peer, Temporary and Non-Tenure Track, and Adjunct do not follow the same procedur= es in Article 17 either.

 

I am confused by the statement “all three have a step process with regard to deadlines that implies a “collegial process” including resolution rather than a punitive process.” When has the process not been “collegialR= 21;?

 

I am also confused = by the statement “all steps are done through the committee chair”. The actual evaluation procedures are carried out under the direction of the committee chair once the process has actually been started. Prior to the ac= tual beginning of the review process, I have sent out thousands of reminders in = my tenure as TERB Coordinator. As examples, reminders that a faculty member be= ing evaluated still needs a committee chair, reminders that a committee still n= eeds to be formed, and after the evaluation has been done: reminders that student evaluations have not been turned in, reminders that the Evaluation Packet h= as not been turned in, etc.

 

What happens if a f= aculty member declines to be evaluated and the department chair does not appoint a committee chair? Evaluations are required by law and TERB currently has no specific procedure to handle this.

 

        In addition, if peer reviews for tenured faculty are not in on time (page 78; see process under Section F, Peer, last paragraph).  The TERB coordinator is to contact the peer committee chair.  The TERB coordinator, Committee Ch= air, and evaluee will meet to set new deadline dates.  Throughout the entire process, it = does not state that a dean is notified or involved in extending the deadlines.

 

I believe the curre= nt way of handling late peer evaluations is collegial rather than punitive. The current way of handling late Peer Evaluations is to correspond with the cha= ir and determine when the evaluation can be completed. Faculty members are very busy and friendly reminders have been very effective. The procedure outline= d in the Faculty Manual seems punitive.

 

In brief, 1) the TE= RB Coordinator will contact the committee chair. The Coordinator, committee ch= air, and the evaluee will agree upon in writing a new completion deadline not to extend more than 15 working days beyond the Feb. 20th due date.2= ) If the compete evaluation is not in the TERB office by the date mutually set by the above contract, a memo will be sent to the evaluee, committee chair, and members of the committee requesting a meeting with the TERB Coordinator ASA= P to explain the reasons for the further delay. A copy of this memo is sent to t= he appropriate division dean and vice president. 3) If the compete evaluation = is still not forthcoming the Coordinator will write a report about the unreaso= nable delay. The Coordinator’s report, stating the reasons for delay and recommendation will be brought forth to the TERB. The TERB may make additio= nal recommendations and may request that the appropriate vice president place a letter in the personnel file of the committee chair and /or committee membe= r.

 

For the last four y= ears, if after numerous requests, there is no response, I have contacted the appropriate dean for help. Again, evaluations are required by law. There has never been a complaint regarding my doing so. The reasons for asking for he= lp are many; no response from a department chair, no response from a committee chair, no response in a request for a needed signature, and lately a faculty member refusing to be evaluated and the department chair not assigning a committee chair.

 

Years ago two TERB Coordinators followed the punitive measure in the Faculty Manual and a huge outcry arose for his heavy-handed tactics.

 

As a note, the Dean= and VPI will play a larger role in Peer Evaluations once the contract is in eff= ect. Per Article 17, the Dean and/or VPI may submit observations and/or recommendations to the Peer Review Committee. Such observations and/or recommendations shall become an official part of the final evaluation recor= d.

 

        &= nbsp;       The categories of probationary faculty and temporary and non-tenured track faculty may challenge either the randomly selected faculty member= or the faculty member selected by the department.  (Page 74, Section B) However, the = same provision does not exist for tenured faculty in procedure 173 (page = 76, Section B).  The major reason = for the difference with the tenured faculty is because the department ch= air designates him/herself or a designee as committee chair and the evaluee cho= oses the other member or asks TERB to select a second committee member.  There is no provision in any of the faculty groups for the evaluee to challenge the department chair or designee.  <= /p>

 

            =             &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           See Article 17

 

According to proced= ure 173, TERB will “critically review all  probationary faculty evaluations t= hat results in an overall rating of needs improvement or unsatisfactory evaluations”; however, there is no statement to indicate that TERB reviews only substandard evaluations (page 81, A – however, th= is statement is repeated several times in other sections).  

 

            =             &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. “Expressio unius= est exclusio alterius”   &= nbsp;         

  =             &nb= sp;

The TERB will review evaluations of tenure faculty in the following circumstances: overall rating of needs improvement or unsatisfactory; committee refers evaluation = to TERB and the dean refers to TERB…however, the third circumstance is <= u>only if inconsistencies in the process exists (pg. 81, Item B).  There is no statement to indicate = that TERB reviews only substandard evaluations.  (Page 81, Item B)

 

            =             &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. “Expressio unius= est exclusio alterius”

 

Correction: “= If in the judgment of the division dean, inconsistencies appear in the evaluation materials, then the evaluation must be referred back to the peer review committee for clarification and reconsideration.” <= /p>

 

According to Sectio= n F, Item 4, additional material based upon “significant personal experience” may be presented to the committee chair for inclusion in = the evaluation; however, the material must be submitted by the deadline.  In addition, all information must = be reviewed by the entire peer committee before the deadline (page 78 for Peer – however, this issue is repeated within each evaluation process).

 

Correction: The Fac= ulty Manual under the “Method for Peer Review” states that “Additional material submitted by other faculty or staff members abou= t an evaluee’s job performance, based on significant personal experience, presented in a signed, written statement to the committee chair. The peer review committee must receive this information by the deadline indicated in= the Evaluations Calendar.” It also states under “Evaluation Review Committee Chairperson” that “The committee chair will critically review the required and supporting evaluation materials.”<= /span>

 

TERB must convene e= ach fall and spring to adopt its calendar for semester due dates (page 73)=

            =    

Correction: The Faculty Manual states that “TERB convenes and adopts calendarR= 21;

  =             &nb= sp;         &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           The TERB calendar has been rolling over for years.

 

Section G (page 78) states that the evaluee will have access to all information used in the evaluation process. 

 

            =             &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           When has an evaluatee not had access to all information used in the evaluation process?

 

Faculty members bei= ng evaluated “may initiate due process proceedings at any time.” (TERB, page 78, Section G, last sentence - Also, this statement is repeated several times in other sections).

 

            =             &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           This is current practice but has nothing to do with TERB.

 

It appears that fac= ulty sign their evaluation before the TERB Coordinator, Dean and V.P. Instruction rather than the faculty member under evaluation signing after all signatures and statements have been collected.

 

Before sending the original evaluation report to HR and a copy to the evaluatee, the TERB Coordinator checks the report for completeness. If the report is complete a= nd all signatures present the TERB Coordinator signs off on the report.

 

Board must meet 2/month to “discuss and act on requests for changes to the written evaluation plan, to annually rev= iew and revise, if necessary, the policy and procedures on tenure and evaluation….. and to consider problems, complaints, and concerns of t= he faculty” (TERB duties page 81, Section A)

 

Correction: The Fac= ulty Manual states that “TERB meets twice a month to discuss and act on requests for changes to the written evaluation plan, to annually review and revise, if necessary, the policy and procedures on tenure and evaluation, to develop plans for continuing improvement of all phases of the existing evaluation plan including forms, to discuss research and initiate experimen= ts, to refine and improve the evaluation process, and to consider problems, complaints, and concerns of the faculty.”

 

Like all councils, boards, and committees, TERB does not meet when there is no business to transact. Per Article 17, “The forms in use during the 2001-02 academ= ic year appear in Appendix AA of this Agreement and shall remain in force until changed as provided in this paragraph. (See flow chart) Without both the District’s and the Federation’s consent no policy, procedure, f= orm changes could be made. On March 15, 2002, the District stated that TERB was= at “status quo” and therefore, no changes could be made.

 

TERB meetings were = called when needed. For example, TERB needed to review a substandard evaluation.

 

For the past 15 yea= rs, past practice has been for TERB to consider the broad picture and process a= nd the phrase “to consider problems, complaints, and concerns of the faculty” have all been related to the process and procedures not prob= lems with the outcome of any individual evaluation.

 

Page 82, Section C (last paragraph) at least= 6 members of TERB and the coordinator must be present if decisions regarding tenure or evaluation reports are made.&nbs= p;

 

            =             &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           This is current practice.

 

The TERB Coordinato= r must write a yearly report; however, the procedure does not state specifically w= ho the report is given to (Page 82, duties of coordinator).<= /p>

  =             &nb= sp;

Correction: “= The duties of the Tenure and Evaluation Review Coordinator include: 14. Writing= a year-end report.

It seems that the T= ERB Coordinator’s yearly report would go to the Coordinator’s supervisor the VPI.

 

Evaluations of the coordinator are conducted yearly; however, the procedure does not state spe= cifically who the evaluations are given to. (Page 82, Item C, evaluation of coordinat= or.)

 

Again, it seems tha= t the TERB Coordinator’s evaluation would go to the Coordinator’s supervisor the VPI.

 

I would like to sta= te again as I did in my letter to the Senate last week, that there is a new Faculty Senate, a new TERB, a new TERB Coordinator, there will be a new VP = of HR, and a new President. These people, with the Federation should probably establish a joint task force to examine all aspects of the process so that = next time contract negotiations come around, the Tenure and Evaluations process = can be refined so that it minimizes any confusion or misunderstanding.

 

After clarifying w= ith MaryAnn Drinan that faculty does not have a contract yet, Monika Brannick a= sked why Article 17 was being referred to. We are now operating under the current Faculty Manual.

 <= /span>

Bonnie Dowd stated= that the Professional Procedures Committee has attempted to address concerns whi= ch came to the Senate from the perspective of two individuals. The committee s= poke with the two individuals and attempted to gather information. She added that although the TERB process has been for the most part collegial, the fact th= at TERB did not meet makes it appear that the process may not have been colleg= ial.  Bonnie stated that perhaps if= TERB had met, it would not appear as if one person was making a decision but rat= her the entire board.  Bonnie said tha= t she felt had the board met it would have protected the TERB coordinator as an individual as well as the Senate by ensuring that there are several individ= uals making decisions. She also stated that it was important for the Senate to remember that TERB and the PD Board were created with representation from e= ach division to ensure that there was a broad range of perspectives with regard= to both of these policies and procedures.

 <= /span>

Anne Voth responde= d that they did meet every first and third Monday until the district went into negotiations.  She said that T= ERB is still working with the Faculty Manual but no changes can be made to any of = the forms, policies, or procedures unless approval is obtained from both the district and the PFF. The district has said in no uncertain terms that TERB= is at “status quo.” She added that she did hold a couple more TERB meetings to look at and correct forms, and at that time asked the TERB memb= ers if any of them had any agenda items and everyone stated that they did not. = She stated that she then told the former Vice President of Instruction that the= re weren’t any agenda items and it was determined that the group wouldn’t meet unless an issue came up. No decisions were made by Anne= , as the Coordinator. Everything has just been rolling along – people have been going through their probationary evaluations, through their peer evaluations, and so forth.

 <= /span>

When asked if the = Senate was informed that the TERB was not meeting prior to January 26, Anne Voth s= tated that she did not know.

 <= /span>

Rocco Versaci aske= d Anne a question regarding her reference to the March 15, 2002, meeting. She said= she gave a report to the negotiating term, was it then that it was stated in no uncertain terms that TERB was at “status quo?” Anne replied tha= t it was, by Richard Currier. Rocco referenced a transcript roughly put together from that meeting and stated that he couldn’t find that statement anywhere in the transcript. Anne Voth stated that Jack Miyamoto’s not= es reflect that she did give the report to the team, and that he did speak with Currier and confirmed that during this period of status quo no new policies, procedures, including forms, etc., should be generated in areas that are covered by negotiations. When asked as part of the negotiations team if they received those notes, both MaryAnn Drinan and Julie Ivey replied that they = had not.

 <= /span>

Bonnie stated that= the members of the Professional Procedures Committee were also concerned that a dean may have had involvement in the procedures, other than just administratively by signing off. A statement made earlier by Anne is that b= oth the Vice President for Instruction and the Dean will have a larger role in accordance with Article 17 causes concern. MaryAnn Drinan stated that the P= FF did not envision either the V.P. Instruction or deans as having a larger ro= le but rather the Dean and the VPI sign off on the evaluation as is current practice. If they choose to add any comments there is nothing that prevents them from doing that. MaryAnn stated that PFF did not see the current proce= dures changing under Article 17. She added that there is no dean on the Peer Revi= ew Committee, the dean is not a participant at all, the VPI is not a participa= nt on the committee and does not have anything directly to do with the way that the evaluation is shaped. At the very end of the process there has always b= een that opportunity for them, as they sign off, to add something if they choose to. That is not precluded currently, so PFF does not see that as a change of policy.

Anne Voth added th= at in continuing with her report relating to Article 17, Peer Review Number 3, “Either the Dean or the Vice President in charge of the evaluateeR= 17;s discipline may submit observations and/or recommendations to the PRC. Such observations and/or recommendations shall become an official part of the fi= nal evaluation record.” She stated that if they are submitting observatio= ns and/or recommendations to the Peer Review Committee it seems that it is bei= ng done before the report is finished.

 <= /span>

Bonnie Dowd refere= nced the statement Anne made earlier that “the expression of one thing is = the exclusion of another” and wondered what that statement was based upon= as she didn’t understand why the fact that needs improvement and unsatisfactory evaluations are to be reviewed by TERB why that is interpret= ed to say that satisfactory are not reviewed by TERB. Anne Voth stated that it could be changed, but that past practice is that TERB has not looked at anything but the those stated as needs improvement or unsatisfactory as per Procedure 173 in the Faculty Manual.  Anne also stated that the one time = it was requested by a faculty member to come to TERB to talk about an evaluation t= hat was neither sub-standard or unsatisfactory, the Vice President of Human Resources told her, as Coordinator, that it was not in the jurisdiction of = TERB and that TERB had no business looking at it. Bonnie Dowd stated that she do= es understand that the TERB coordinator is in a situation in which she is rece= iving input from a vice president, but Bonnie said she was concerned as to why th= e vice president for human resources should be involved at all given that this position in not part of tenure or peer evaluation. She added her concern as= a faculty member that we not have our faculty peer evaluations become a manag= ement process rather than being an instruction driven process. Anne Voth stated t= hat in this case the evaluation had been done the prior spring and the request = came the following fall and the report was no longer in the hands of the Tenure & Evaluations office but in the hands of VP of Human Resources so she h= ad nowhere else to go at that point. Bonnie asked Anne why she felt at that po= int that she had nowhere else go to. Bonnie stated that the Senate got involved with TERB issues in January when already many things had already happened. = Anne Voth stated that evaluations are a legal issue, we are required by law to h= ave both probationary and peer evaluations. The evaluation had been over for 6 months, it was in the hands of Human Resources, where else would you go? So= me Senate members indicated that she should have gone to the TERB or the Senat= e. Anne stated again that it was in HR so she called to see what she should do with something TERB no longer had. If TERB no longer had it they are no lon= ger involved in any way.


Monika Brannick interjected that it was not about her evaluation, but it was about Anne’s letter included in her final packet that she got from the TERB office that she did not receive until the following fall semester. That was her issue, and what she asked to have investigated. She added that she would also like to make clear that she did got go to TERB because she didn’t like her evaluation – she came to TERB because of all the inconsistencies the way she saw them, and requesting that her concerns be heard.

 

Motion 11&nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;    MSC Dowd, Brannick: To extend the meeting until 4:15.

 

Prox= ies:        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;             = Bonnie Dowd announced the following proxies for Senators that had to leave the meeting:

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Bonnie Dowd holding a proxy for Martha Evans.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Brent Gowen holding a proxy for Teresa Laughlin.

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Daniel Finkenthal reported his understanding of California Open Meeting Laws that elected officials cannot give proxies. He strongly urged the Senate to appo= int a task force to look into this issue for next year before continuing with t= he practice of accepting proxies. He added that the problem now is that any decisions made by this body can be undone by the court now that the Senate = has been informed of this.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Daniel stated that he is going before the Governing Board on May 11 to address one= of the issues in his evaluation and the issues surrounding TERB, and this Sena= te meeting is finally his opportunity to address Anne and some of the other TE= RB members as to some of the issues surrounding his evaluation. He stated that= Doug Key put out a letter this morning and Anne reiterated that there seems to be somebody on campus that has refused to be evaluated. He asked Doug to name = that person and where he got that information.

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Doug Key stated that he got this information from the email Dan sent out.  There was an email that said that = Anne had got a hold of Takashi (Nakajima) and that Takashi had stated that he thought you were going to talk to Anne but you apparently did not. He added that in that email Takashi stated that Dan declined to be evaluated.

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  After confirming that the email was sent to everybody, Dan stated that it would h= ave been nice if someone had come to him directly because that is heresay and a miscommunication of the facts.  Daniel said that he never told his = chair that he refused to be evaluated just that he refuses to be evaluated in a particular fashion. He stated that he refuses to be evaluated in a way that would legitimatize a corrupt and defunct process. He stated  did not want to go through the mot= ions and allow his evaluation to serve as another business as usual, look the ot= her way because things go smooth for me, I’m not going to care that our evaluations process is not set up. He used the reference of Rosa Parks and = her refusal to sit down on a bus. She did not refuse to sit down on the bus she refused to sit down in the back of the bus. Because that law and the laws it governs were illegal. She felt they were illegal and immoral. He added that when he declined to be evaluated through the TERB office that in no way was that to mean that he refuses to give his peers an opportunity to evaluate h= im, or his students an opportunity to evaluate him. He stated that he refuses t= o go through the rules that were set up by this body that were not being followed correctly, even after many appeals trying to get those rules to be followed properly. That is not the same thing as refusing to be evaluated. He stated that his point in doing that civil disobedience was to shame the people on = TERB and the TERB Coordinator into doing their jobs correctly and convene the TE= RB so they would finally have a venue to address his issues and the concerns he had with the tenure and evaluations review process. That is why he did what= he did and what he will go to the Governing Board meeting and insist that the notion that he refused to obey California State Law, which requires faculty members to be evaluated every 3 years, or that he refused to cooperate with= his students, is untrue. He stated that he wants to be evaluated by his peers a= nd students and wants to give them a fair chance to evaluate him, its Anne Voth that he refuses to cooperate with for specific reasons that the TERB was ac= ting inappropriately and so was this oversight body that is supposed to be the Senate. The Senate also dropped the ball by not holding people accountable = for what they were doing. He stated that you can’t now say, “well, hindsight is 20/20.” You all met here consistently every Monday knowi= ng that TERB meets the first and third Monday’s. He asked if anyone ever= saw a TERB member get up and go to a TERB meeting on a first or third Monday. T= hree TERB members actually sit on this Senate so its really hard for someone at large, such as himself, who puts his trust as well as a lot of responsibili= ty, in elected officials to think that they are actually doing a bona fide job = when things aren’t going according to plan. He also stated that he would l= ike to clarify in some of the statements is that when we say that the TERB also= reports to the VPI that’s not true. The TERB coordinator reports administrati= vely to the VPI. He stated that he doesn’t know exactly what “reports administratively” means, but it doesn’t mean that the TERB partially reports to the VPI. He stated that “reports administratively” probably means staffing the office regularly, which apparently wasn’t done because every time he has gone to the TERB off= ice the coordinator was never in the office and instead he had to deal with the secretary there who at one point had to consistently deny him access to information that he is guaranteed to by law and as a member of the TERB as receiving. He added that he doesn’t know why she (the secretary) was = put in the position of having to refuse him public documents but she was put in that position and that is a very unfair position to put her in. He stated t= hat now he is hearing that other faculty cursed at her in the past, no wonder s= he is upset with him. He asked Anne if it was true that other faculty members = had cursed at the secretary during the evaluations review process. <= /span>

 <= /span>

Anne replied that = she was told by the current secretary Colene (Hicken) that years ago when a TERB Coordinator wrote a letter, followed the faculty manual in the punitive fashion, a letter was put in a personnel file of the committee chair and a committee member and Colene said she was cursed at by a faculty member.

 <= /span>

When asked by Dani= el if any action was ever taken against that person, Anne indicated that she did = not know.

 <= /span>

Daniel stated that= one of the things that he is being brought up for is merely raising his voice l= ike he is now. He stated that he happens to have a loud voice, he has a big roo= m of students to project to - that is just the way he is – he is not polit= e, he is not quiet, but this is the way he is. If he is going to be put on tri= al for being what he is, your going to have to put about four million Jews on trial for being the way they are – this is the way they communicate. = He stated that what he needs from the Senate right now is to recognize that his evaluation was completely corrupted during the fall semester and that he was not given the opportunity of going before the board or challenging the board because the board never met. He added that he would have been reluctant to challenge the board because when he came before the Senate in the fall and challenged the Senate instead of answering to any of my accusations or complaints in the past, he had a Sexual Discrimination Complaint filed agai= nst him. He asked Anne if she had said that she got bad legal advice on that. He asked her who gave her that legal advice. Anne stated that she did not file= a Sexual Discrimination claim against him, that it was a Hostile Work Environ= ment Retaliation. Daniel insisted that he was investigated for Sexual Discrimina= tion and asked again who gave her that legal advice. After a Senator called for a Point of Order, Daniel indicated that Anne took those steps as a Senator, a= nd that the Senate as a body should not have condoned it. He stated that it is difficult to put his trust in a representative body that would treat facult= y at large that way rather than answer to their accusations which were political= ly motivated and politically based. He stated that he never got personal in his accusations, that he would not do that. He can make political claims and br= ing political issues to this body. If he can’t bring them here where else= can he take them? He would like to handle them in a collegial representative fashion if he is going to put any kind of trust in this body. He expressed = his frustration that Anne would not answer his question because she made that statement in the past and not being able to back it up is really frustratin= g. He stated that people make claims and accusations and do not provide any pr= oof. He added that at the moment his evaluation has been given to the Governing Board and in that evaluation changes have been made to it after he signed i= t. He stated that as everyone knows, the last page is separate from and not attached to the report itself. He has a copy of his original report as well= as the copy that has gone to the Governing Board. He stated that there are clerical changes that are minor. Someone changed the report after he submit= ted it. He added that that is not the serious issue. What’s more signific= ant is that there are comments put on his evaluation after he signed it by his = dean and the Vice President of Instruction. He stated that some of those comment= s are completely unfair, like, “doesn’t cooperate with faculty and staff.” He stated that isn’t something that needs to go to the Governing Board. That is taken out of context from his evaluation on campus= and his refusal to go along with a corrupt tenure and evaluations review proces= s. He stated that there is no place in the Faculty Manual that enables a dean = or a Vice President of Instruction to make comments about his evaluation or him.= The only thing in the Faculty Manual about this references if the dean finds inconsistencies they kick it back to the TERB or the committee, not make th= eir own comments on his file as they’ve done in this case, with just the right timing that his evaluation gets sent to the Governing Board with two administrators saying that he doesn’t cooperate with faculty and staf= f on campus. He stated that Chairs go to a lot of time and trouble to make balan= ced informed opinions to really help shape the upcoming three years of the eval= uee to really improve their teaching. This is what its meant to do – help= us become better teachers. He stated that the Governing Board is going to turn= to the last page and look at what two administrators wrote on his evaluation. = That is not fair. He stated that the dean in this case refers to student evaluat= ions. The student evaluations are minor, except for one point that he failed to t= urn work in on time. He stated that he has his strengths and weaknesses. He did= do well in every other category. What is the one the dean points out? 42% of Daniel’s students disagree that he turns back his work in a timely fashion. He stated that that’s fair enough, except that it’s not 42% of his students, its 7 students in one class. The other evaluations weren’t referred to, they weren’t all folded together. The dean makes the general statement that 42% of all his students…<= /span>

 <= /span>

Katie Townsend-Mer= ino asked Daniel if he had specific questions to ask TERB or the members of the Professional Procedures Committee.

 <= /span>

Daniel requested t= hat the Senate make a statement that his evaluation as well as others have been compromised in the past. He would like the Senate to state that himself or = any other faculty member evaluated under this current regime, should have the option of requesting that their evaluation be nullified and repeated if the= y so wish. He stated that it was a simple request – that there have been m= any problems and inconsistencies and that he needs to be able to go to the Governing Board tomorrow night and say that the evaluation that they have in their hands has been effectively nullified because of problems with our ten= ure and evaluations review process. He stated that he feels that is more than f= air because a lot of people have dropped the ball here and he is the one that i= s being put on the stand for it.

 <= /span>

Sherry Gordon stat= ed that she accepts the fact that there are inconsistencies in the Faculty Man= ual, however if she was in the same position she would have brought these issues= to the Faculty Senate item by item in an attempt to get them corrected. She ad= ded that during this time period because of the issues with the contract, maybe= the TERB Coordinator doesn’t need an 80% reassigned time because they can’t do so many things. That should be brought to the attention of t= he Senate and perhaps that time could have been utilized for something else du= ring that time period. She asked Anne who should be monitoring those positions f= or faculty members in reassigned positions, the administration or the Faculty Senate.

 <= /span>

Anne stated that t= he majority of her job is not holding TERB meetings, 1.3% of her 80% release load goes = to chairing TERB meetings. Most of her time is spent coordinating the entire process, and she believes that she utilized that 1.3% time towards getting = new software for the TERB office and a new scanner. She added that she felt that she effectively put that time in other places and that she did call meetings when a topic came up to look at.

 <= /span>

Bonnie stated her feeling that the Senate, as a body, was amiss in not dealing with the fact = that this was an academic and professional matter. The Faculty Senate needs to take responsibility for this in the form = of a statement to the Governing Board that we know, and they know, that this is = an academic and professional matter and that this is the body to deal with fac= ulty members’ issues relating to tenure and review.

 <= /span>

Shannon Lienhart a= dded that in Daniel’s statement she felt he was also trying to say that he felt that it was a personal necessity for him to attend Senate meetings giv= en that the TERB Coordinator had filed a Sexual Discrimination charge and that he w= as being evaluated and she refused to recuse herself. He did not feel like he could send materials to that office. He felt that it was absolutely personal necessity that he come to the Senate and talk about TERB and he thought it = was personal necessity that he get on the TERB and address those issues as a member. He felt there was tampering with his evaluation, that he was being targeted. She added that one of the charges against him is that he missed a couple of classes and took personal necessity leave. He felt because of the= way the Senate and TERB was behaving that it was a necessity for him to come to= the Senate and to go to TERB. She stated that she hopes the Senate will admonish both Dean Rourke and Anne Voth for involving a dean in the evaluation proce= ss. That is a precedent that we do not want moved forward to the new TERB coordinator, this is a faculty process.

 <= /span>

Judy Cater stated = that the Senate clearly needs to work on the oversight. There are inconsistencies and misunderstandings and that it is very clear as with any process that so= me things could have done better, and perhaps done considerably worse. She add= ed that she does not support the assignment of blame, but agrees that the Sena= te needs to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

 <= /span>

Monika Brannick st= ated that when the question about the appointment of the Curriculum Co-Chair cam= e up it took the Senate two meetings to not only call in the party that we felt = was responsible for the manipulation but it took the Senate two meetings to call her in and make a decision about what the Senate felt was right or wrong. S= he stated that both her and Daniel have screamed to anyone that would listen, = and this has been going on for months and months. The question is not blame, the question is responsibility. She stated that if she, as a faculty member, volunteers to a committee and becomes the chair she takes on a heavy responsibility and she expects everyone to hold her to that responsibility.= She stated that she would like to turn it around and ask Anne to finally take h= er responsibility. She added that she is sick and tired of talking about Artic= le 17 when she doesn’t have a contract yet. She is a union member but it doesn’t mean anything to her. She stated that she is sick and tired of having to explain and ask the same questions over and over again. If the Se= nate doesn’t want to hold the TERB Coordinator responsible for what went w= rong in her evaluation and in Daniel Finkenthal’s evaluation at least give them one thing: nullify the evaluations that went so wrong and let them sta= rt all over again.

 <= /span>

Sara Thompson stat= ed that she agrees with Judy Cater, that there is a lot of gray area here. The person who is being accused of these various different things was not actua= lly spoken to face-to-face. Monika was spoken to as she should have been, Daniel was spoken to as he should have been, but Anne Voth should have been spoken= to in person also. She wasn’t, she was emailed. That isn’t appropr= iate for someone who is being accused of being corrupt. She added that she agrees with Judy that Anne has explained her time factor that carrying out over 100 full-time evaluations per semester or year as well as the numerous adjuncts that she does. As far as the recusal for Daniel’s evaluation, Sara st= ated that in hindsight, and that is what we’re all using here, and we̵= 7;re using it very self-righteously, like most of us would have known exactly wh= at we would have done in Anne’s position. Most of us would know what we = wish we would have done, or hope we would have done, but Anne was the only one in the position to do it. As far as the recusal policy, Sara stated that she d= id talk to her and advised her at the time and didn’t think she needed to recuse herself. The TERB Coordinator doesn’t actually write anything about the evaluation other than to make sure everything is signed and filled out correctly. She stated that if she had to do it again she would follow O= scar Wilde and say: “it isn’t enough to be innocent, you must have t= he appearance of being innocent.” She stated for that point she gave her (Anne) bad advice as several did. As far as not using the dean in this proc= ess Anne has stated, and she has experienced it as a department chair, when committee members for whatever reason doesn’t answer, the committee c= hair for whatever reason doesn’t answer, and the person being evaluated doesn’t answer, that is what happened. And it has happened before. Th= is isn’t something Anne thought up to get Daniel. She also added that Article 17 is being mentioned because the Professional Procedures Committee= had gone to such great lengths to read through and try to ascertain the problem= s in our procedures, she felt that the Article 17 was= an attempt to address what would be different and what we could look forward t= o in the way of changes. She stated that the committee needs to consider that An= ne never had a chance to speak to them directly and they did give that chance = to Daniel and Monika. That was the beginning of a big problem.

 

Moti= on 12        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MS Bedford, Gordon: That Rocco Versaci and Bonnie Dowd be authorized by the Se= nate to draft a statement to be presented to the Governing Board at their May 11, 2004, m= eeting.

 

Moti= on 13        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MSC Versaci, Hohman: To extend the meeting until 4:30 p.m.

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Sherry Gordon stated that Daniel came up against the situation here because of the problems with our policies, felt that he had no one that he could go to, because he did attempt to do so. We do not have a recusal policy in place a= nd we have an obligation because we did not take the appropriate action becaus= e we didn’t see where we were going with all of these things because it co= uld have been any of us. The fact that faculty members are signing their evaluations and then handing them in to be signed after the fact is a proce= dure we need to look at and change.

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Bonnie stated that she is not comfortable to write a motion to be read at a board meeting without this body having seen it. Doug Key agreed, stating he would= not support a statement without hearing it and voting on it first.

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Barb Kelber spoke in support of making a statement to the effect that we will support Daniel as he stands before the Board and faces consequences that co= me as a result of the process breaking down, that if we are going to make a statement that allows us to represent all of the faculty and say the process broke down. If we are going to do that it seems that we have to urge that i= n coming through this storm he should not be the only one who carries out of it a condemnation that attaches to him professionally. If we’re going to s= tart talking about unprofessional conduct and assign it fairly we have a lot more discussion to do. In the absence of our ability to do that, we have to urge that he not be the person, who out of all of this with all of the problems = that have occurred and the breakdown in the process that it not be his burden al= one to carry away on the record as a professional blight. She stated that she believes that one of the things that has been so plain to her as she has struggled to try and figure out what to say on behalf of the faculty, that might represent the faculty in this matter to the Board, is that this is an= academic and professional matter and we have a TERB coordinator for the very purpose= of dealing with this process of overseeing it, coordinating it, taking responsibility for it. It’s an assigned time position with enormous responsibility and trust attached it. The fact that our TERB coordinator ca= nnot answer to the board herself, cannot stand and answer questions, has to do w= ith the complications, the complexities of this which attach to her. She is implicated in it so she cannot stand up. Because she cannot stand up becaus= e of those implications we have to find a way to support all of the faculty memb= ers if we can. We may not have a clean resolution but we cannot throw one out a= nd try to protect the other. We have to fairly try to cover them both, even if that’s not the most comfortable position. We may all have to compromi= se in some humility and generosity and take responsibility and meet in the mid= dle by protecting both because we can’t protect one and let the other go.=

 

Doug stated that h= e had some reservations about what Daniel has done and the process. Has anyone ev= er said: “I have a problem with the process so I’m going to do my = own thing and not involve TERB.” He added that TERB had a responsibility = to get him involved and did what they did to do that. He stated that his compromise was that he could be supportive of something of Dan. He will not= be supportive of anything that will turn this into a punitive body that will s= tart condemning individuals.

 

Moti= on 12 substitute        &= nbsp;  MSCU Bedford, Gordon: The Faculty Senate has been reviewing BP173 and procedure 173, and will continue to so in the = next academic year, because several issues/concerns have been brought to our attention regarding the TERB policy and procedures.  Based upon our re= view thus far, the Faculty Senate h= as determined that there are serious inconsistencies in the policy and procedu= re that must be addressed.  These inconsistencies, in evaluation policies= and procedures, have had a direct impact on the issues raised in Dr. Finkenthal’s letter of reprimand dated 2/10/04, and on his personal interest in attending TERB meetings during the spring 2004 semester.  Because the notice of unprofessional conduct is being justified in large pa= rt by the aforementioned letter, the Faculty Senat= e respectfully urges the Governing Board to not proceed with its notice of unprofessional conduct against Dr. Finkenthal.

 

Othe= r:        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;   Katie Townsend-Merino asked Senate members if they wished to hold a special meeti= ng next week to wrap up any unfinished business.

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Sara Thompson asked the Senate to consider scheduling a meeting to discuss Information item F, MNHS Dean Search Committee. She stated that since that committee has to go forward and begin meeting that the Senate needs to disc= uss the issue as soon as possible.

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Katie stated that it does state in Robert Rules of Order that a body cannot resci= nd an election once the member has been notified. However, it is reasonable to have the issue on the agenda to be discuss if the senate so wishes.

 

Moti= on 14        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MS Kelber, Bedford: That the Faculty Senate hold a special meeting on May 17, 2004, a= t 2:00 p.m. to discuss the MN= HS Dean Search Committee.

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  The motion was not voted on due to a lack of a quorum.

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Katie also asked Senators to send a copy of their summer schedules to the Senate office before Friday. She reminded those present that a quorum represents o= ne half plus one member.

 

 

ADJO= URNMENT:        &= nbsp;      The meeting was adjourned at 4:= 30 p.m.

 

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

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Bonnie Ann Dowd, Secretary