|
MPC Academic Senate |
|
|
October 5, 2006 |
![]() |
|
President's Report
Notes |
|
Executive Committee Meeting
We met for three hours on 9-28-06.
Mostly talked about revision of bylaws
And questions and format for the VP-AA open forums;
(more later)
Mentioned relative roles between Academic Senate and MPCTA union.
(more later)
ASCCC Area B Meeting:
Marleen will be going.
ACADEMIC SENATE FOR CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Friday Oct. 13, 2006
10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Welcome and introductions:
Cañada host: Patty Dilko
Cañada College President: Tomas Mohr
Dean of Humanities: Katie Townsend-Merino
Area B Rep: Greg Granderson
2. Purpose of this meeting/ preview agenda
3. Location of next year’s area meetings *** Laney College
4. Report on important issues: Exec. Committee members
5. Review of Executive Committee resolutions
6. Development of Area B resolutions
7. Announcements & Discussion (Everyone is invited to bring up topics)
8. Adjournment
You may bring a draft of a resolution from your local Senate ---or just some ideas for issues that need to be addressed, and we can work on them together.
College Council
1) Working hard on exactly the same things we are:
Who are we and what should we be doing?
Who is a member and what are the term limits?
How do wee keep College Council from being a "Rubber Stamp" committee?
College Council has been having this conversation for almost a year.
I have agreed to serve on a committee with Gail Fail (Union Pres), Bernie Abbott (CC co-chair), and Doug Garrison (The Pres) to try and sort this stuff out.
2) Senate president is a member of the Budget committee.
1st and 3rd Mondays 1 pm.
I teach at this time. Who would like to go?
Any suggestions on how to find somebody to serve as my proxy?
3) Should the Deans be able to elect a member to College Council?
-Currently no.
-Currently, Deans are not “eligible” for representation at College Council
-How does Dean’s perspective differ from Vice Presidents?
-Would addition of Deans dilute faculty representation?
College Council Membership Fall 2006
Voting Members – 18
|
Administrative Members (4) Doug Garrison – President/Superintendent Carsbia Anderson – VP, Student Services Joe Bissell – VP, Administrative Services Bill Cochran – VP, Academic Affairs
Julie Bailey Jonathon Edmonds Brenda Kalina Stephanie Perkins
|
MSC Members (1) Steve Morgan, Director, Facilities, Planning & Management
Student Members (2) Josh Sears
Faculty Members (7) Bernie Abbott A.J. Farrar Paola Gilbert Marianne Ide Bill Jones Lyndon Schutzler Alfred Hochstaedter, Academic Senate Pres (Gail Fail, MPCTA representative) |
4) Should the Academic Senate appoint/confirm the MPCTA representative?
The answer is "NO", based on an e-mail from Ian Walton, ASCCC President:
Fred - I talked with Hazel yesterday and promised to copy you both on this response.
I have suggested a meeting between Academic Senate leadership and MPCTA leadership to talk about many things, including
-how to support each other
-how to stay out of each other’s way
-more clearly define roles
Conversations with Doug Garrison
-only met once because of Board Meeting.
-Have agreed that we will get an administrative person to do the day-to-day and logistical aspects of Flex Days.
-He has said that he has somebody in mind, but is just waiting to get all the details worked out.
-Turning this over to Flex Day committee: please communicate with Doug directly.
-Have agreed on format for open forums (no questions/comments now please):
-hosted and moderated by Academic Senate (Fred)
-Five minutes introductory remarks
-four to six questions agreed upon by Academic Senate asked to all candidates
-remaining time devoted to additional questions from the audience.
-Standard questions:
-discussed at 10-12-06 Exec Comm meeting
-please spread word and submit questions
-either by e-mail or on 10-12-06 2:30 pm PS106.
Forum Schedule:
Monday Oct 16 5-6
Tuesday Oct 17 1:30-2:30
Wednesday Oct 18 5-6
Thursday Oct 19 12:30-1:30
Friday Oct 20 12-1
Program Discontinuance
The revised proposed Board Policy is ready to come back to the Senate for further review.
Did we have a first reading for this??
Or did we send it back for revision so that it could come back for a first reading?
If we approve it on a second reading and then another group comes up with substantial issues, what do we do?
Demand to see it again? Go with what the other group decides?
I've asked the union if they've seen it yet.
For me, this brings up the larger question of "what is a first reading"?