Minutes of the

Minutes o= f the

MEETING O= F THE FACULTY SENATE

March 13,= 2006

APPROVED

PRES= ENT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Rosa Antonecchia, Glenn Akers, Mark Bealo, Bill Bedford, Monika Brannick, Judy Cater, Molly Faulkner, Jenny Fererro, Candi Francis, Brent Gowen, Lawrence Hahn, Julie Ivey, Teresa Laughlin, Stan Levy, Barb Neault Kelber, Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg, Sue Norton, Patrick O’Brien, Morgan Peterson, Jose Rangel, Fari Towfiq, Lori Waite

ABSE= NT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Kalyna Lesyna

GUES= TS: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; John Asbury, Donnie Boyle, Ralph Ferges, Jim Gilardi, Neill Kovrig, Thomas May, = Sara Thompson, Rocco Versaci

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

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

Approval of Minutes: &n= bsp;

Moti= on 1 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Nebelsick-Tagg, Laughlin: Faculty Senate approval of the minutes of March 6, 2006, as amended.

Publ= ic Comments: &nbs= p; There were none.

Anno= uncements: &= nbsp; Barb Kelber invited everyone to the Campus Explorations event on Wednesday, Marc= h 15, at 2:00 p.m., in ES-19. This week’s seminar session features students from the Telescope staff on the topic of “Ethics and the StudentsR= 17; Perspective.”

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Judy Cater announced that the library in the Escondido Center recently acquired a coin-operated copy machine for student use. She added t= hat the San Marcos campus now has both a black and white and a color copier available in the library.

Moti= on 2 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Nebelsick-Tagg, Cater: To suspend the agenda to address Action items A, B, = C, & D.

Comm= ittee

Appo= intments:

Moti= on 3 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Brannick, Levy: Faculty Senate approval of the following committee appointm= ents:

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Technology Resource Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Michael Arguello, Social and Behavioral Sciences

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Sherry Goldsmith, Counseling Services

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Compliance Officers

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Judy Cater

Elec= tions: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Stan Levy reported that a call for volunteers to fill upcoming Senate vacancies = will be distributed later this week.

Curr= iculum:

Moti= on 4 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Laughlin, Cater: Faculty Senate ratifies the work of the Curriculum Committ= ee.

Comm= encement and

Tran= sfer-Ready

Stud= ents: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; At last week’s meeting, Tere Egkan provided information about transfer-r= eady students and advocated their participation in commencement. Tere’s presentation was in response to requests from various areas on campus for t= he Senate to reconsider its recommendation that transfer-ready students not participate in commencement but continue with the tradition that began last year of holding an event at the Transfer Center.<= /span>

Moti= on 5 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSF O’Brien, Levy: The Faculty Senate reconsiders its earlier decision of recommending that transfer-ready students not be invited to walk with the graduates. The Senate requests the Student Services Planning committee crea= te the minimum requirements and procedures transfer-ready students must follow= in order to be listed in the program and walk with the graduates. SSPC will present those minimum requirements and procedures for Faculty Senate ratification. Motion failed.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Senators discussed whether it is appropriate to recognize transfer-ready students in= the same manner as those students who satisfy the requirements of an AA degree = or certificate. It was noted that the Senate, in voting against this participa= tion originally, did not intend to leave transfer-ready students out of commence= ment or not to honor them. Because these students have distinguished themselves differently, many Senators supported the idea of a separate occasion to hon= or them. Discussion continued on= both sides of the issue of participation, including a concern expressed by a Sen= ator that the Transfer Center’s budg= et may be insufficient to host such an event.

Moti= on 6 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSW Kelber, Francis: The Faculty Senate recommends that the Strategic Planning Council augment the Trans= fer Center’s budg= et to enable transfer-ready students to have a recognition ceremony. The Faculty Senate will work in earnest to encourage support and participation of that auspicious occasion. Motion withdrawn.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion occurred on possible sources of funding for the event. Some Senators felt t= hat rather than making a specific recommendation, Brent Gowen should inform Pre= sident Deegan and Vice President Cuaron of the Senate’s discussion and ask f= or their help in identifying other funding sources. It was suggested that the dollar amount needed for the event be brought back to the Senate for discus= sion and possible action at a later date.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; It was also noted that because Motion 5 did not pass, the initial recommendati= on (made at a prior meeting) of including transfer-ready students’ names= in the program but not having those students walk with the other graduates is = the recommendation of the Senate.

Tenu= re Denial Case: &= nbsp; At last week’s Faculty Senate meeting, those present were provided with a detailed history of the tenure denial case of Dr. Roya Lahijani, including = an account of previous actions taken by the Senate and the Governing Board.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; During this past week, Senators were invited to review detailed information provid= ed by both the Palomar Faculty Federation and the members of the Life Sciences department Tenure and Evaluations Review Committee.

Moti= on 7 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Laughlin, Faulkner: To extend the meeting until 3:30 p.m.=

Moti= on 8 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSF Faulkner, Brannick: The Faculty Senate supports the Palomar Faculty Federation’s position that the Governing Board accept the order of the Administrative Law Judge reinstating Roya Lahijani as a tenured faculty mem= ber of Palomar College. Motion failed.=

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Members of the Senate heard information from the members of the Life Sciences depar= tment Tenure and Evaluation Committee and Palomar Faculty Federation Co-President Rocco Versaci. Lengthy discus= sion followed on the process of evaluation of both probationary and peer faculty. One Senator questioned why the Senate was discussing this issue. He noted t= hat the Senate voted on this issue when it was brought here in the spring of 20= 05. The latest developments that brought this issue back to the forefront relat= e to matters in the purview of the Governing Board, not of the Faculty Senate. A= nother Senator suggested that the Senate ask the Governing Board to acknowledge, in light of the reasonable request for due process and the court decisions rendered, both that the probationary faculty evaluation process was flawed = and that departmental autonomy in these matters is a significant element of our shar= ed governance process. It was also pointed out that the PFF should be acknowle= dged for doing honorable and necessary work and that the Senate should perhaps b= e a concerned but neutral body. T= he faculty does not authorize the Senate to be involved in the details of indi= vidual tenure and peer reviews; it places faculty representatives, by division, on TERB and oversees its processes. If the Senate oversteps, it could hurt the= union in the long run because questions of authority may become divisive.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; One Senator expressed her belief that because there is the absence of certainty, the Senate should support the PFF in its request that Dr. Lahijani be grant= ed tenure as a proper remedy regarding the December hearing.=

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Another Senator pointed out that Dr. Lahijani did have a formal hearing by an independent Administrative Law Judge. This judge, after listening to four d= ays of testimony, three of which were testimony given by the evaluation committ= ee, found that Dr. Lahijani’s evaluation process was not followed and tha= t major mistakes were made. The Senator urged the Senate to vote for the motion, because we all have to take responsibility for the work we are doing, and if mistakes are being made, we have to take responsibility for those also.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Additional discussion followed.

Moti= on 9 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Cater, Laughlin: To extend the meeting until 3:45 p.m.

Moti= on 10 (amended) &nbs= p; MSW Kelber, Francis: The Faculty Senate acknowledges the following:<= /span>

The case of Dr. Ro= ya Lahijani brought to our attention some significant ~~flaws and~~ gaps th= at existed in the tenure review process as it stood, especially for probationa= ry faculty during the time of her review.

The Senate has tak= en steps to address these flaws in the process through a working group compris= ed of members of the Tenure & Evaluation Review Board and the Palomar Faculty Federation.

We also acknowledg= e that departmental autonomy is a significant hallmark of Palomar’s shared governance process and we respect the members of the review committee in th= is case who followed the process ~~however flawed,~~ with thoughtful action= s on behalf of their department.

We also acknowledg= e and appreciate the honorable and necessary work of the Palomar Faculty Federati= on in its work on behalf of Dr. Lahijani.

Having acknowledgi= ng these, the Faculty Senate requests that we be seen as a concerned but neutr= al party in this matter. However please do not read our neutrality and restrai= nt as advocating for either side. We urge the Governing Board to decide this c= ase in light of the whole picture as it has taken shape before them, with caref= ul consideration of the reasonable request for due process for Dr. Lahijani and the significant decisions rendered by the courts. Motion withdrawn.

Senators discussed whether it was appropriate to use the word “flawed” in the moti= on. It was pointed out that many tenure committees met during this time period and utilized the process with no difficulties whatsoever. The process is not wr= ong or flawed simply because a faculty member doesn’t receive tenure.

Motion 11&nb= sp; = &nb= sp; MSC Francis, Faulkner: To extend the meeting until 4:00 p.m.<= /p>

It was also pointe= d out that last year the Senate acted to redress what was seen as flaws based on = examination of this very case. TERB has since made changes in the evaluation process of probationary faculty.

Additional discuss= ion followed on the wording in motion 10.

<= /span>

Motion 10 was with= drawn. Senators directed Brent Gowen to emphasize to the Governing Board that the Senate discussed and deliberated this issue at length although no formal ac= tion was taken. The Faculty Senate is unique in its willingness to hear matters = at this length and to offer opportunities to people to give divergent perspectives.

ADJOURNMENT:= &nb= sp; The meeting was adjourned at 3:58 p.m.

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Respectfully submitted,

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Teresa Laughlin, Secretary