Minutes of the

Minutes o= f the

MEETING O= F THE FACULTY SENATE

March 6, = 2006

APPROVED

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

ABSE= NT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Rosa Antonecchia

GUES= TS: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; John Asbury, Judy Cater, Theresa Hogan Egkan, Ralph Ferges, Jenny Fererro, Dan Finkenthal, Jim Gilardi, Neill Kovrig, Sha= nnon Lienhart, Joe Madrigal, Sue Norton, 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 February 27, 2006, as amended.

Welcome: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Brent Gowen welcomed recently elected Senators Judy Cater, Jenny Fererro, and Sue Norton. They, along with Morgan Peter= son, will officially be seated at next week’s meeting.

<= /span>

Motion 2 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Nebelsick-Tagg, Laughlin: To suspend the agenda to address action items A, = B, C, & D.

<= /span>

Committee

Appointments:

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

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

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mark Bealo &n= bsp; AMBCS

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Dan Clegg

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Learning Outcomes Council

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mary Cassoni

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

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Susan Snow

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

= &nb= sp; = CURRICULUM COMMITTEE APPROV= ED ITEMS

Wednesday, March 1, 2006<= /span>

&n= bsp;

I.&n= bsp; = ; ACTION ITEMS

Details of all program and course proposals can be viewed at: = http://w= ww.curricunet.com/palomar

• Select = Track, All Proposals.

• From th= e list of pending proposals, select the Check Status button for the program or cou= rse

you wish to view.

• Select = the Pencil Icon in order to navigate through the various pages of the proposal,= or

• Select = the "WR" Icon to view the Course Outline of Record or Program Report,= or

• Select = the "CC" Icon to view a report that displays proposed changes for the course or

program

To view Packages:

• Select Packages under Create/Edit Proposals, then select the Pencil Icon to see th= e

individual proposals included in the Package. Various Icons wi= ll be accessible for creating

Reports or viewing the various pages of each proposal.

The following curricular changes, pending appropriate approval= s, will be effective FALL 2006:

A. Packages

1. Package Title: PE course Deactivations and Program changes

Discipline: Physical Education (PE)

Description: PE 132, 160 and 161 deactivated. PE 161 is deleted from two programs

&n= bsp;

A. Credit Course Deactivations<= /o:p>

1. Course Number and Title: PE 132 Intermediate Skiing

Discipline: Physical Education (PE)

Transfer Acceptability: UC, CSU

Repeatability: May be taken 4 times.

Reason for Deactivation: Inactive

&n= bsp;

2. Course Number and Title: PE 160 Beginning Racquetball<= /o:p>

Discipline: Physical Education (PE)

Transfer Acceptability: UC, CSU

Repeatability: May be taken 4 times.

Reason for Deactivation: Inactive

&n= bsp;

3. Course Number and Title: PE 161 Intermediate Racquetball

Discipline: Physical Education (PE)

Transfer Acceptability: UC, CSU

Elective course in Adult Fitness/Health Management<= /span>

Certificate of Achievement, and elective course in Physical Education AA Degree.

Repeatability: May be taken 4 times.

Reason for Deactivation: Inactive

B. Program Changes

1. Program Title: Adult Fitness/Health Management

Discipline: Physical Education (PE)

Award Type: Certificate of Achievement

Total Units: 35 – 37

2. Program Title: Physical Education

Discipline: Physical Education (PE)

Award Type: A.A. Degree Major

Total Units: 32 – 37

2. Package Title: SPAN 240/241 Deactivation & removal from General Studies Program

Discipline: Spanish (SPAN)

Description: Proposal initiated by the Instructional Services Office. Courses are on the Curriculum Committee course deactivation list and are being removed for the General Studies program.

A. Credit Course Deactivations<= /o:p>

1. Course Number and Title: SPAN 240 Spanish for Native Speake= rs I

Discipline: Spanish (SPAN)

Prerequisites: Native speaker of Spanish

Prerequisite course for SPAN 241

Elective course in General Studies AA Degree=

Reason for deactivation: Inactive

2. Course Number and Title: SPAN 241 Spanish for Native Speake= rs II

Discipline: Spanish (SPAN)

Prerequisites: SPAN 240, or native speaker of Spanish

Transfer Acceptability: UC, CSU

Elective course in General Studies AA Degree=

Reason for deactivation: Inactive

B. Program Changes

1. Program Title: General Studies-Emphasis in Arts and Humanit= ies

Discipline: Counseling (COUN)

Award Type: A.A. Degree Major

Total Units: 60

Remove SPAN 240 and 241 from elective courses for General Stud= ies - Emphasis in Arts and Humanities

3. Package Title: TA course deactivations/program changes

Discipline: Theatre Arts (TA)

Description: Deactivation of: TA 216. Also two program changes= to remove TA 216. TA course deactivation on the 2004-05 Curriculum Committee l= ist of deactivations.

A. Credit Course Deactivation

1. Course Number and Title: TA 216 Intermediate

Acting II: Character Development

Discipline: Theatre Arts (TA)

Prerequisites: TA 116

Transfer Acceptability: UC, CSU

Required course in Theatre Arts AA Degree Major, and in Theatre Arts – Emphasis in Acting AA

Degree Major

Distance Learning Offering(s): CAI

Repeatability: May be taken 2 times.

B. Program Changes=

1. Program Title: Theatre Arts

Discipline: Theatre Arts (TA)

Award Type: A.A. Degree Major

Total Units: 24

Remove Deactivated TA 216 as option in Program Requirements

2. Program Title: Theatre Arts-Emphasis in Acting

Discipline: Theatre Arts (TA)

Award Type: A.A. Degree Major

Total Units: 34 - 35.5

Remove Deactivated TA 216 as option in Program Requirements

B. New Programs=

1. There are no New Programs for this agenda.

C. Program Changes

1. See Program Title: Fashion Design/Entry-Level

Discipline: Fashion (FASH)

Award Type: Certificate of Achievement

Total Units: 28 - 29

Add FASH 148 as Required course; Increase total units

&n= bsp;

2. Program Title: Fashion Design/Technical

Discipline: Fashion (FASH)

Award Type: A.A. Degree Major

Total Units: 40.5 - 42

Add FASH 148 as Required course; Add BMGT or BUS 155 as Requir= ed; Increase total units

&n= bsp;

3. Program Title: Fashion Merchandising/Entry-Level=

Discipline: Fashion (FASH)

Award Type: Certificate of Achievement

Total Units: 22 - 23

Add FASH 148 as Required course; Increase total units

&n= bsp;

4. Program Title: Fashion Merchandising/Technical

Discipline: Fashion (FASH)

Award Type: A.A. Degree Major

Total Units: 35 - 36

Add FASH 148 as Required course; Add BMGT or BUS 155 as Requir= ed; Increase total units

&n= bsp;

D. Program Deactivat= ions

1. There are no Program Deactivations for this agenda.

E. Credit Courses &#= 8211; New

1. Course Number and Title: CHEM 109 Forensic Chemistry

Discipline: Chemistry (CHEM)

Prerequisites: A minimum grade of C in MATH 50

Course Included in the following programs: Administration of Justice - General, A.A. Degree Major

Distance Learning Offering(s): TV, Online

&n= bsp;

2. Course Number and Title: CHEM 205L Introductory Biochemistry Laboratory

Short Title: Introductory Biochemistry Lab

Discipline: Chemistry (CHEM)

Co-requisites: CHEM 205

Transfer Acceptability: UC, CSU

Grading Basis: Grade Only

3. Course Number and Title: CSIS 57 Introduction to Online Learning

Short Title: Intro to Online Learning

Discipline: Computer Science & Information (CSIS)

Distance Learning Offering(s): TV, Online

&n= bsp;

F. Credit Course = 211; Change

1. Course Number and Title: CFT 144 Production Furniture Making (Toys)

Discipline: Cabinet & Furniture Technology (CFT)

Elective course in Cabinetmaking and Furniture Design AA Degre= e

Major or Certificate of Achievement; and Elective course in

Furniture Making AA Degree Major or Certificate of Achievement=

Repeatability: May be taken 4 times.

Increase Repeatability from 2 times to 4 times.

&n= bsp;

2. Course Number and Title: MUS 246 Kodaly II

Discipline: Music (MUS)

Prerequisites: MUS 245

Prerequisite course in MUS 243 and MUS 247

Required course in Kodaly Music Education Certificate of Proficiency

Transfer Acceptability: CSU

Distance Learning Offering(s): TV

Repeatability: May be taken 2 times.

Add Distance Learning

&n= bsp;

3. Course Number and Title: RTV 100 Introduction to Radio and = TV

Discipline: Radio and Television (RTV)

Required course in Radio and Television AA Degree Major or

Certificate of Achievement; Elective course in Entertainment Technology Certificate of Achievement and in General Studies AA Degree=

CSU GE Area C: Arts, Literature, Philosophy and Foreign

Languages - C1 - Arts, Dance, Music, Theater=

Transfer Acceptability: CSU

Title Change

&n= bsp;

4. Course Number and Title: TA 108 / ENTT 108 Stagecraft and S= cene Design for Theatre and Television

Disciplines: Theatre Arts / Entertainment Technology

Prerequisites: ENTT 105 / TA 105

Required course in Theatre - Technical AA Degree Major and The= atre Arts AA Degree Major; Elective course in Radio and Television AA Degree Maj= or or Certificate of Achievement

Transfer Acceptability: UC, CSU

Change lab hours (Title change approved at 11/16/06 Curriculum Committee meeting.)

&n= bsp;

G. Credit Courses - Deactivations

1. There are no Credit Course Deactivations for this agenda.

H. Non Credit Course= - New

1. There are no New Non Credit Courses for this agenda.

I. Non Credit Course= - Change

1. There are no Non Credit Course Changes for this agenda.

J. Non Credit Course= - Deactivation

1. There are no Non Credit Course Deactivations for this agend= a.

K. Distance Learning

The following courses may be offered as distance learning and = meet Title 5 Regulations 55370, 55372, 55374, 55376, 55378 and 55380, effective = FALL 2006:

Catalog/Subject Number &n= bsp; = ; Distance Learning Offering(s)

CHEM 109 &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = TV, Online

CSIS 57 &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; TV, Online

MUS 246 &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; TV<= /o:p>

TA 216 = ; &n= bsp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; CAI

&n= bsp;

II. INFORMATION

A. Technical Corrections<= /span>

1. EME 211 is Credit/No Credit only. It was displayed as Graded/Credit/No Credit at the time the Curriculum Committee approved the n= ew course proposal. (1/30/06).

2. EME 75L is 1 unit and 3 laboratory hours per week. It was displayed as 1.5 units at the time the

Curriculum Committee approved the new course proposal (11/14/0= 2)

3. HE 100L is “Not offered as open entry/open exit.̶= 1; It was displayed as “May be offered as open

entry/open exit.” at the time the Curriculum Committee approved the new course proposal

(11/14/06).

These items will be brought back for action at next week’= ;s meeting.

&n= bsp;

Learni= ng Outcomes

Council: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Senators were provided copies of the Governance Structure Group Request form = for the Learning Outcomes Council at last week’s meeting. Barb Kelber outlined the proposed changes to the meeting schedule and membership.

<= /p>

Motion 4 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Kelber, Laughlin: Faculty Senate approval of the Governance Structure Group Request form for the Learning Outcomes Council and Steering Committee.

<= /p>

Motion 5 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Nebelsick-Tagg, Laughlin: To suspend the agenda to discuss information item= s C, E, A, and D, respectively.

<= /p>

Commencement and

Transfer Ready Students:<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> Brent Gowen reminded Senators= of their discussion several weeks ago regarding transfer-ready students and th= eir possible participation in commencement. The Senate recommended that transfe= r-ready students not participate in commencement but continue with the tradition th= at began last year of holding an event at the Transfer Center. Because there were some requests f= rom various areas on campus for the Senate to reconsider its recommendation, the item was placed on the agenda for discussion. Tere Egkan provided information about last year’s event and answered questions, noting that approximately 100 transfer-ready students a= nd their families attended. She stated that participation in commencement woul= d be in lieu of the Transfer Center event, and t= he extent of their participation, i.e. wearing cap and gowns or limiting their involvement to their names printed in the program, would have to be determi= ned. When asked by a Senate member to estimate the number who would be interested in participating, Tere indicated that although she wasn’t certain of the actual number, the gesture by Palomar of acknowledging their goal is important. One Senator no= ted that transfer-ready students may think of their situation as entirely diffe= rent from those graduating. Bri= ef discussion followed.

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = This item will be brought back for Senate action on March 13.<= /p>

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = Tere Egkan also presented infor= mation on Transfer Guarantee Programs as well as a brief description of the servic= es available to those students wishing to transfer.

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = Neill Kovrig, President of the Associated Student Organization, asked that the following Resolution of the Executive Board of the ASO, be read into the minutes:

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = WHEREAS transfer students complete sixty units of California State University (CSU)= and University of California (UC)-approved courses, and

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = WHEREAS transfer students demonstrate the aptitude and motivation to go further with their education, and

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = WHEREAS transfer students have a comprehensive mastery of English, Mathematics, Arts and Humanities, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Physical and Biological Sciences, Foreign Language and American History and Ideals,

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Associated Student Organization of Palomar College hereby concurs that transfer students deserve the same recognition as Assoc= iate in Arts (AA) degree students, ergo {such students} should walk in commencem= ent.

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = He also read the following Executive Order (2063-002) into the record:

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = An ORDER of the EXECUTIVE OFFICER of the ASSOCIATED STUDENT ORGANIZATION of PALOMAR COLLEGE, to be titled thus:

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = [TITLE} An Order of the Executive Officer Regarding the Disposition of the Associat= ed Students Pertaining to Transfer Students Participating in Commencement Exercises.

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE, BE IT KNOWN that the Executive Officer of the Associat= ed Student Organization of Palomar College, acting in that capacity and vested with the authority of that Body, does hereby note the following regarding t= he general disposition of the Associated Students of Palomar College relevant = to the participation of transfer students in Commencement:

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = IN RECOGNITION OF the fact that a significant number of students who attend Palomar College transfer to other institutions of higher learning without demonstrations of aptitude and motivation in transfer students not unlike t= hat seen amongst students who pursue the AA degree, in addition to the comprehensive mastery required by standard patterns of general education for transfer students that are similar if not more demanding than those require= d of candidates for the AA degree, the Associated Student Organization approved = by unanimous consent Resolution 2063-R01;

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = THE MEMBERS OF THE Asssociated Student Organization, in the consideration of th= is Resolution, have determined that transfer students should have the option of participating in Commencement exercises in the same manner as those students receiving AA degrees or other Certificates noting accomplishments achieved = here at Palomar College;

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = FURTHER= MORE, the Executive Officer of the Associated Students would suggest that, in line with the intent of the Resolution submitted by the Associated Student Organization, those students who have filed with the Evaluations Office for certification of a general education pattern designed for transfer to anoth= er institution of higher education should be extended an invitation to partici= pate in the Commencement exercises, on behalf of the Governing Board, the Administration, Faculty, Staff and Students of the District;

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = THEREFO= RE, may this Executive Order serve as an elucidation of the Resolution submitte= d by the Associated Student Organization, and also as a firm commitment on the p= art of the Executive Officer, and by extension the Executive Board of the Associated Students entire, to support the participation and recognition of transfer students in the general Commencement Exercises, in celebration of = the achievements of all Palomar College students without prejudice towards their educational pathways.

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = DONE, this 1^st Day of March 2006, at Paloma= r College, in the City of San Marcos, California.

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = ATTEST:= &= nbsp; Neill Kovrig, President

<= /p>

Student Services: &= nbsp; Joe Madrigal provided Senate members with an update on events and activities currently occurring in the Student Services area:

<= /p>

· The Cashier’s Office area has been reorganized and moved from Fiscal Services to Student Services. The college is now offering students the opportunity to pay th= eir bill at the same time they register.

· An on-line application has been developed for those students <= span style=3D'mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'>who are applying for the Board of Governors Grant Waivers. This acc= ess will provide more efficient and expeditious processing of the student requests. =

· The Peer Amba= ssador Program continues in an effort to increase student retention.

· An attempt is being made to formalize a process to institutionalize campus tours.

· Two electronic marquees are being purchased that will be insta= lled in the Student Union. These marquees will publicize events that the college= is sponsoring.

· The responsibility for commencement has been transferred from Student Services to the office of Student Affairs, primarily with the intent to involve students more actively.=

· The process of hiring student employees has been consolidated = to the Human Resources area. Rather than having student workers complete paper= work in both Student Services and Human Resources areas, it will now be handled = by HR only.

· The Gear-Up and Upward Bound Grants have both been renewed for= new 5-year cycles.

· The college has entered into a partnership with Taylor-Made Ad= idas Golf to fund and help support the newly created Women’s Golf Team. Th= is partnership aids in the progress towards Title 9 and a development of a partnership in the community.

· The responsibilities of the Police Department have been transferred to the Student Services area with the commitment that a more service-oriented and user-friendly department will be available to faculty, staff, and students.

Mr. Madrigal added that the following changes are being propos= ed for the future:

· The baseball field will be relocated to Borden Road, the site also of a soccer field. The college continues to have= a partnership with the City of S= an Marcos for redevelopment monies and has also met w= ith a donor to complete the project.

· The softball field will relocated to the site currently being utilized by the men’s baseball team.

· The Student Services area is expected to occupy the Learning Resources Center with the passage of the bond and in the meantime continues with challenges = posed by insufficient space. Ide= ally those counseling faculty and staff members currently located in Redwood City woul= d be moved with the rest of the Student Services staff in an effort to make it easier for students to meet with everyone in the same area.

· The Executive Summary for Institutional Review will be posted = on the College’s website when it is completed.

All faculty, staff, students, and community members are invite= d to visit the Boehm Gallery on March 18 from 4:30 – 6:00 p.m. for a celebration of Caesar Chavez. Over 40 photographs will be displayed and available for purchase.

A celebration will also be held on campus for students, facult= y, and staff on March 31 from 12:00 – 3:00 p.m. in front of the clock to= wer. More information will be distributed soon.

Constitutional Review: Barb Kelber reported that the proposed changes to the Constitution will be sunsh= ined soon. Faculty will be provided with both a copy of the proposed changes with strikeouts and underlined areas showing the changes, as well as a clean cop= y of how the document will look if approved. Information on the faculty forums t= hat will provide opportunities for discussion will be distributed in the next couple of weeks.

Motion 6 &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Laughlin, Faulkner: To extend the meeting until 3:30 p.m.=

Tenure Denial Case: &= nbsp; In relation to this agenda item, Brent Gowen stated to Senate members that whe= n he received a request to place this item on the agenda, he was concerned about= the possibility of Senators making themselves vulnerable to possible litigation= by discussing this matter inasmuch as it involves confidential personnel information. He added that he as= ked for counsel on the extent to which anyone speaking on confidential matters = in an open setting is making him or herself vulnerable to possible litigation.= The Vice President of Human Resources warned that there is risk discussing confidential personnel matters in public, and President Deegan informed him that there is no problem discussing the issue in an open setting. The lawye= rs representing the union provided Brent with a Waiver of Confidentiality sign= ed by the faculty member denied tenu= re.

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = Brent reminded those present of the Senate’s previous engagement with this matter. On March 7, 2005, = Judy Crowe, representing the Tenure & Evaluations Review Board (TERB), and R= oya Lahijani, came to the Senate to speak. Judy reported on Roya’s evalua= tion process and said that the TERB determined that her committee had done it correctly--that is, according to= the guidelines in the Faculty Manual at the time of the evaluation. Roya then s= poke to the Senate, saying that= she found problems with her evaluation process and described her concerns. The Senate entertained a motion to recommend another evaluation of Roya to determine the granting of tenure. The motion failed by a 9 to 8 vote, with = some Senators not voting. Then on April 4, 2005, Ralph Ferges, Jim Gilardi, and Sara Thompson came to the Sen= ate. Jim presented a letter that Roya’s evaluation committee wrote regardi= ng the motion that failed at that March 7 meeting. Jim emphasized that they wo= uld not be discussing confidential matters about Roya’s evaluation. In the letter the committee members affirmed the importance of the evaluation proc= ess and that they had followed that process. They also called for improvements = in the process and for the Senate to clarify its role in the process. Much discussion followed. In this intervening year changes intended as improveme= nts have been made in the Tenure & Evaluation process, but the Senate’s role is still ambiguous, especially n= ow that Tenure & Evaluation is also a union matter. On May 9, 2005, Shannon Lienhart came to the S= enate to report on the hearing conducted before an administrative law judge on Roya’s denial of tenure. Ed= . Code gave Roya the right to that hearing. In the judge’s opinion, whi= ch is advisory only, flaws had occurred in Roya’s evaluation process and= the college should reinstate her with tenure. Sara responded to Shannon’s report, emphasizing that the committee had done its job and that the Senate should support TERB committees. Later in that session the Senate entertained this motion: “The Fa= culty Senate respectfully requests that the Tenure & Evaluations Review Board look at the recent ruling relating to the tenure of Dr. Roya Lahijani, see = what can be learned from it, and make a recommendation if it so chooses. The Fac= ulty Senate makes this recommendation without prejudice.”

<= /p>

That motion failed by a 17 to 3 vote. Since then Roya’s = case has been considered by a Superior Court Judge, who focused not on the evaluation process but on how the Governing Board informed Roya of their decision not to rehire her. This judge remanded the case to the Governing B= oard so that it could give Roya due pr= ocess--which is to say, the opportunity to argue for herself, either in person or in writing, before the Board makes its final decision on her tenure. The Gover= ning Board will hear from Roya in Closed Session at the March 14 meeting.

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = Because there were many guests present to comment on this issue, Brent indicated th= at he would attempt to call on all of those interested in speaking in the orde= r in which they raise their han= ds.

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; = Rocco Versaci read the following statement and asked that it be included in the minutes of today’s meeting:

<= /p>

There is some degree of urgency to the follo= wing statement and request by the PFF as the Governing Board will be making a decision regarding this issue at its March 14 meeting.

Dr. Roya Lahijani was hired as a member of t= he Life Sciences Department in August 2001.&n= bsp; She began the tenure evaluation process and was awarded a one-year contract after her first year and a two-year contract after her second year. In her final year as a probationary faculty member, she was informed that she would not be granted tenure and would not be rehired after her fourth year. She approached the PFF, and we investigated her case. <= /o:p>

After looking into the matter, the PFF came = to believe that there were significant procedural violations in Dr. Lahijani’s evaluation and that she was unjustly denied tenure. We pursued this matter through leg= al channels, the first step being a hearing in May 2005 that was conducted by a state-appointed administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ’s findings supported= our beliefs, and these findings were based on four days of sworn testimony and cross examination of everyone involved, including the members of Dr. Lahijani’s evaluation committee.&nbs= p; In fact, the testimony of these individuals comprised the bulk of the hearing. After the hearing an= d in addition to reviewing the considerable paper records and evidence involved,= the ALJ ruled that Dr. Lahijani’s committee “failed to evaluate [he= r] performance in accordance with the tenure and evaluation procedures set for= th in…the District’s Faculty Manual.” The ALJ further ruled that “= the evidence did not establish that cause exists…to deny [Dr. Lahijani] tenure.” The order sign= ed by the ALJ stated that Dr. Lahijani “shall become a regular tenured acad= emic employee.”

The ALJ’s order was not binding, so the Palomar College Governing Board had the choice to either accept or reject i= t, and at their May 2005 meeting, the Board members rejected it by a vote of 4-1. After this rejection, th= e PFF continued to pursue legal action because the Board did not properly afford = Dr. Lahijani the opportunity to be heard in closed session—as is her legal right—before making its decision.&nb= sp; That is, while the Board had the right to reject the ALJ's decision,= it did not have the right to violate the statutory protections provided to Dr. Lahijani by the Education Code.

In a December 2005 hearing, the Superior Cou= rt supported this position and declared, in essence, that the Board perform a “do over” and give Dr. Lahijani the opportunity to present her = case in closed session. Our positi= on is that since the original Board decision has been nullified, then the importa= nt May 15 deadline has been missed, and the natural outcome of this missed deadline is that Dr. Lahijani should be reinstated and granted tenure. There is case law that supports su= ch remedy. The PFF is currently appealing the Superior Court order because while we agree with the court’s findings—that Dr. Lahijani’s right to due process= was violated—we do not agree that the court’s remedy—to remand the decision back to the Board—is the proper one.

As implied by our actions, the PFF’s position is that the Board should accept the order of the ALJ. The Faculty Senate, however, has remained silent on the matter, and the Senate should know that there are members of the Governing Board who have interpreted this silence as evidence that faculty support the District’s position, and they have voted accordingly.

The position of the PFF is that tenure and evaluations are important and vital processes that must remain faculty-controlled and centered. We also believe that in order to maintain the faculty-centered nature of these processes, the PFF and the Senate must ensure that faculty adhere to the le= tter and spirit of stated procedure. It is not our position to erode or undermine faculty authority; it is, however, our position that maintaining faculty authority requires that we be vigilant over how faculty members exercise this authority in positions that affect a= ll of us, and that we not blindly endorse the work of faculty simply because i= t is work done by faculty. The sit= uation here is that an outside agency ruled that the work done by members of a ten= ure committee failed to follow our stated evaluation procedures. Because the Senate has a significa= nt stake in faculty committees in general and in tenure and evaluations in particular, then this body cannot remain silent.

The PFF hereby requests that the Senate pass= a resolution that takes a definite stand on the signed order that emerged from May 2005 hearing, on the signed order that emerged from the December 2005 hearing, and on the PFF’s appeal that Dr. Lahijani be granted tenure = as a proper remedy regarding the December hearing. We further request that this resol= ution be considered no later than the next Senate meeting because, as stated earl= ier, the Board will be reconsidering the decision of the ALJ during the closed session of its March 14 meeting. &nbs= p; It is the hope of the PFF that the Senate will stand united with us = on these issues.

As you deliberate on what actions to take, please consider the following question:&nb= sp; If an impartial state judge finds that an evaluation committee depri= ves a faculty member of a valid evaluation, and if a Superior Court judge finds that a District failed to follow the statutory procedures for denying tenur= e, then how can faculty members fail to challenge the resulting denial of tenu= re?

Members of the Sen= ate heard information from Palomar Faculty Federation (PFF) Co-President Rocco Versaci, PFF Secretary Shannon Lienhart, members of the Life Science Tenure Evaluation Committee, and other guests.

<= /span>

Lengthy discussion= as well as a question and answer period followed.

<= /span>

Senators were info= rmed that detailed information from the PFF and the evaluation committee would be available for their review prior to next week’s meeting.

<= /span>

Brent Gowen indica= ted that this issue would be brought back for Senate action on March 13, 2006.<= o:p>

ADJOURNMENT:= &nb= sp; The meeting was adjourned at 4:09 p.m.

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

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

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; =

<= /p>

= &nb= sp; =