MPC Academic Senate

October 19, 2006

 

 

President's Report

 

Notes

 

Thank you Stephanie, the minutes are really good!

Stephanie, the thing that comes to mind as I read these minutes is how really good they are. They capture the main points of the discussion and really bring me back to sitting right there listening and participating in the conversation. They are not too wordy or difficult to read. I’ve read other minutes where the note taker tries to put things in paragraph form and winds up stumbling over words and phrasing and not capturing the essence of the discussion. I appreciate that yours are short, to the point, but just long enough to capture the essence of the conversation.

 

-Fred

 

 

Executive Committee Meeting

We met for two hours on October 12. We discussed

-the the School Nurse position

-the ASCCC meetings (see below)

-questions for the VP-AA open forum.

Added the COC Request Form to the Academic Senate home page

 

The next Executive Committee Meeting will be a joint Senate -- Union leadership meeting.

We'll be trying to figure out how to support each other, stay out of each other's way, and generally work towards a strong faculty voice at MPC.

You are welcome to attend if you like.

 

College Council

Deans on College Council?

Last time we questioned whether this was needed because the dean perspective is presumably the administration perspective which is represented by the VPs.

VP (Carsbia + Joe) response is that the problem is not one of representation, but that the Deans are currently excluded from being able to participate on college council.

Furthermore, the deans sometimes have different perspectives than the VPs.

 

This question will go to a College Council subcommittee (Fred, Gail, Bernie, Doug) to work on.

This subcommittee was reported on last time, but has not had time to meet yet.

 

Conversations with Doug Garrison

 

Enrollment Advisory Committee Problems

-Inconvenient meeting times

-Meets to long

-Unrelated topics in one committee; too much for one committee to handle

 -Big push towards retention, but now we want to see where and by what processes discussions are happening

 

Doug Reports:

-Yes, perhaps meeting times and lengths could be improved.

-He had asked Carsbia to contact me to discuss some of these issues

-Needs more faculty involved in this important committee

-Currently Jean Castillo, Eric Ogata, and Mike Torres,  (+Alan Haffa?) are the only faculty involved

    -needs teaching faculty from GE transfer (Math, English +?), and vocational areas

 

-I will meet with Carsbia Tuesday Oct 24 at 2 pm.

-Would somebody with a little more experience with these issues like to join us?

 

 

Staff Development: Susan Osorio will chair this committee. Does this committee currently exist? If not, what kind of expertise do we think should be on it?

 

Program Discontinuance

-This proposed policy is with PACC who is distributing it to various constituency groups, including the students

-There is a late October deadline.

-The union has looked at it, and through their review process, some more problems have come to light.

-These problems are more from an Academic Senate perspective than a Union perspective.

-Problems have to do with

    -The composition of the Discontinuance Committee--should it include faculty and deans from the program in question?

    -The proposed policy currently says the Committee "works in collaboration with program faculty" What does this mean?

    -What if there is a disagreement between the Committee and the program faculty (very likely)? The policy does not address this at present.

    -Problems in the sequence of the "process initiation" section of the policy

-At this point I'll be working with Hazel Ross to work some of these out and propose possible solutions to the Senate advisory committee that worked on this proposed policy.

-If you're interested, I'd be happy to share more details with you

 

ASCCC Plenary Sessions

 

-This meeting happens October 26-28 in Los Angeles

-There is a lot of information and a lot going on.

-The only way I can see to get anything out of this is to break down the questions and issues by *existing* campus committees.

-I have asked Marlene to give us a "primer" on the resolutions going to the Plenary Sessions that include her prioritized list of what the most important issues are.

-For example, here is what the Equivalency Subcommittee might submit to Marlene for the meeting:

 

Academic Senate Subcommittee on Equivalency

 

Information and questions for ASCCC rep Marlene Martin

for the October 26-28 Plenary Sessions

 

Ø      About 33% of our adjunct instructors are teaching because they have been granted single-course equivalencies based on eminence.

 

Ø      About 75% of these single-course equivalencies are for PE or for other non-transferable classes.

 

How does this compare to other colleges, both in terms of the numbers of single-course equivalencies and in what disciplines across the board that they are granted in?

 

Would the practice of granting single-course equivalencies ever come up in accreditation?

  

Ø      In the ASCCC book on equivalencies, it says that there is one campus that, despite regulations, formally recognizes single course equivalencies.

 

Is that us?

 

Are we really the only ones that recognize single course equivalencies?

 

How many others are there?

 

Ø      One of the resolutions is to adapt the new position paper (or book) on equivalencies. The summary recommendations from this paper are listed below.

 

Ø      MPC Equivalency subcommittee agrees with all of them both in principle and in practice except for #3.

 

Ø      On #3, we agree in principle, but not in practice. We would have to start cutting classes and suffer a significant drop in FTES if we did not use single-course equivalencies.

 

What are other campus’ reactions to these recommendations, particularly #3?

 

ASCCC Recommendations (to be voted on by resolution)

 

1.      Equivalency must be determined primarily by discipline faculty.

 

2.      Equivalency processes for part-time faculty and “emergency hire” should be no different from equivalency for full-time faculty.

 

3.      Local senates must ensure that their district and college policies and processes do not allow for single-course equivalencies.

 

4.      Academic senates should assure consistency of the equivalency process.

 

5.      Equivalency decisions should be based on direct evidence of claims (e.g., transcripts, publications, and work products).

 

6.      Claims of equivalence must include how both general education and specialization are met.

 

7.      Human resources offices should NOT screen for equivalency.

 

8.      Local senates must never allow equivalency to be delegated to administration or classified staff.

 

9.      Equivalency policies should be reviewed every few years.

 

10.   Criteria for the acceptance of eminence as a means to establish equivalency must be clearly defined in hiring policy. 

 

11.  Once the local equivalency process has reached a recommendation regarding an individual applicant, Education Code §87359(a) requires that the governing board include action on the equivalency as part of its subsequent hiring action.

 

12.  Additional training materials may be obtained from the Academic Senate office and/or at its website.