Academic Senate


Student Learning


Board Policy

Basic Skills

Flex Day



President's Notes


May 16, 2013


Future Academic Senate Meetings

One Academic Senate meeting remains: May 30.


Advisory Groups

AAAG, SSAG, and ASAG have all unanimously endorsed the SLO Platform. Next step is the College Council.



In joint meeting with College Council, heard a presentation from Walt Tribley about not making cap and structural deficit, similar to the one given to Academic Senate on May 2. Focus on investments that directly support increasing credit FTES was again emphasized. This presentation had a notable addition: news about which faculty positions are being considered for hire. Data was shown that supported credit FTES emphasis.


The New List:


Math Instructor #1

Math Instructor #2

Administration of Justice


Math Instructor #3


Notably MIA:

Digital Services Librarian


Math Learning Center Coordinator


College Council

The College Council has produced a revision of its bylaws, and, as a contribution from the SLO Committee, a revision of the Planning and Resource Allocation Process. It wishes to share as information its revised bylaws with the campus community. It would like feedback from the advisory groups and the Academic Senate about the proposed Planning and Resource Allocation Process (PRAP). Hey, that's a lot better than Integrated Campus Resource Allocation and Planning Process!


The important point is that the SLO/Reflections process has taken a more prominent role in how the College Council conducts its business. This is a direct result of the SLO platform endorsed here at the March 21 meeting.


The newly proposed PRAP is on today's agenda.


The first sections of the new bylaws read as follows (note highlighted sections):

1. Scope and Function of the College Council:

The College Council is the central campus body of the shared governance process for MPC. It confirms institutional support for recommendations to be brought to the Board by the President/Superintendent and leads MPC’s Planning and Resource Allocation processes. It ensures that the institution allocates resources to improve student learning, as supported by the Program Review and Reflections/SLO processes, and to maintain regulatory compliance. The College Council leads the effort to develop and periodically review the institutional mission statement and long-term goals.

The College Council will specifically:

  1. Implement and guide the Planning and Resource Allocation Process, with input from the campus community.
  2. Review and potentially revise the Mission statement and long-term goals every three years.
  3.  Receive program review reports and annual summaries of the Reflections/SLO process so that assessment results on student learning can substantively inform the Planning and Resource Allocation Process.
  4.  Make resource allocation recommendations to the S/P based on
    1. revenue information from the Budget Committee
    2.  allocation recommendations from the advisory groups, College Council subcommittees, or members of the administration/management team
    3.  information from the Reflections/SLO and Program Review processes.
  5.  Review the annual component goals from Academic Affairs, Student Services, and Administrative Services, and potentially recommend changes in accordance with the college mission and institutional goals.
  6.  Receive accountability reports from Academic Affairs, Student Services, and Administrative Services based on their component goals, and discuss their activities related to program review and/or action plans for the planning cycle.
  7.  Review new Board policies or Board policy changes and make recommendations to the President for presentation to the Board.
  8.  Review accreditation reports and recommend to the S/P their presentation to the board.
  9.  Organize open forums for discussion of important or controversial issues.
  10.  Discuss issues important to the MPC community and make recommendations or assign them to the appropriate advisory group or campus committee.
  11. Review and potentially revise the shared governance process to ensure institutional effectiveness on a regular basis.

If you're wondering about the answer, of course there was. The SLO Committee took care of that months ago.



Awaiting information on the Student Success Guidance Group

Budget Committee: Heather Faust

Flex Committee: Heather Craig

ASAG Amy Chirman (STaphanie Tetter leaving)

Other needs: Tech Committee (Mary Johnson leaving)


Contextualizing Date with Rosaleen

Due to time constraints, we've tabled further discussion on this topic until next time.


Content Review
You may remember that  Mike Gilmartin came to the Academic Senate on Sept 20 to ask about MPC transitioning from a system of “research” to a system of “content review” to provide rationale for creating English and Math co- or pre-requisites for non-English and non-Math courses. The Academic Senate told Mike and the CAC to go down this road and create a plan to do this. They have done so, and this week bring us their plan.
A little plain language background:
In the past, when you wanted a English or Math co- or pre-requisite for your non-English or non-Math class (like Economics, Geology, Art, or Philosophy) you needed to do “research”. This was apparently very time consuming and nobody ever did it. At the same time, we all know that strong co- or pre-requisites would improve student success in these classes because all of the students would have the appropriate preparation. So we were stuck. We wanted co- and pre-requisites to ensure student success, but they were difficult to establish because the “research” was onerous. The background to all this has to do with lawsuits involving open access, but I’m shaky on the details.
Now, because of efforts of the state Academic Senate based on the basic skills research we’ve all heard about (students do better if they’re prepared; duh), CCC’s can establish co- and pre-requisites based on “content review”. The “content review” is supposed to be easier than the “research”. This is what the plan is all about. This is a plan to create the “content review” process at MPC.
So what does the plan and proposed process look like? Please click on the link below to find out. I’ve taken a look and already provided feedback to Mike and Sunshine that it needs a executive summary that summarizes the steps that a faculty member must take to enact this “content review”. They replied that this information is on page 10. So you might want to go there if you tire of reading T5 language.

From the Sept 20, 2012 notes


Distance Education
Take a look at the rubric for DE Quality linked below. We’re looking for feedback. Because this has to do with defining DE quality, this is an important topic for the Academic Senate. The intent of this document is to be used as a guideline for DE course design, information for DE instructors, and evaluation of DE courses for program review purposes.
Should the Academic Senate agendize reports from departments that may be facing cuts?
Academic Senate leadership was approached this week by a department that had heard there was a management meeting where cuts to their program were mentioned. This department wanted to come to the Academic Senate and explain why cuts would be bad for their program. Rather than agendizing this item, the Executive Committee decided to ask the Academic Senate as a whole whether this kind of  discussion should be agendized. The concern is that this kind of discussion, and possible actions that could result, start to sound a bit like prioritization, which the Academic Senate has decided it does not want to engage in. Another concern is that if we agendize this department, then we can look forward to many meetings of hearing similar stories from many other departments. Your representative from Earth Sciences, for example, can guarantee that the Earth Sciences Department will want to talk about field trips with the Academic Senate. Finally, it is traditional at MPC that this is the kind of conversation that usually happens at AAAG. Having two groups trying to do the same thing may not be beneficial for the institution. The question for all of us is, is this the kind of agenda item we want?