Senate-Union Issues

8 views
Skip to first unread message

drmp...@aol.com

unread,
Feb 28, 2010, 5:21:07 AM2/28/10
to cccse...@googlegroups.com
Someone recently expressed concern that this group had died - I'm so glad to see that it is alive and well - with interesting conversations transpiring. The ASCCC's Educational Policies committee is tasked with developing something on senate-union relations and we were considering creating a scenarios based document, like the one developed by CCLC and ASCCC. This discussion is a very useful one. If anyone has others that they would like to share, please send them on to me at mpi...@riohondo.edu. We have topics we'd like to cover - but need scenarios - and welcome your real-life senate-union experiences.
 
Thanks,
Michelle



-----Original Message-----
From: cccsenate...@googlegroups.com
To: Digest Recipients <cccsenat...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 25, 2010 3:01 am
Subject: [Google Group CCCSenates] Digest for cccse...@googlegroups.com - 24 Messages in 3 Topics

    Stev...@aol.com Feb 24 07:15PM -0500 ^
     
    The Woodland College example practically sends shivers up my spine. I
    agree with those who say the senate should not be involved. That is, unless
    the senate is the collective bargaining agent for the faculty. Does that
    situation exist anywhere in the CC system? Otherwise, GET OUT NOW, before
    it's too late.

    As Beth pointed out, the senate can and should work with the bargaining
    agent to establish the evaluation PROCESS. That process should then be part
    of the collective bargaining agreement. Theoretically, that process could
    (and apparently does in some places) involve the senate. But why would you
    want it to?

    Ignoring the very scary prospects of a lawsuit, it still seems like a bad
    idea for the entire senate to review the recommendations of the tenure
    review committee. The committee has been given the responsibility for
    evaluating the candidate, presumably using classroom observations and student
    evaluations, and relying on the professional expertise of members in the same or
    a related department. What information would other senate members have
    that could possibly justify overriding the recommendations of the committee?
    Would you want YOUR evaluation to be subject to such a review?

    I could see the senate playing a role in an appeal process, but, even
    then, not involving the entire senate.

    Steve Gold
    Cypress College (retired)

    In a message dated 2/24/2010 3:41:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,
    gjga...@gmail.com writes:
     
    This has been a very hot issue at our college, Woodland Community College.
    As a senate, we review the recommendations of the tenure committee, and
    ask questions of them. Then we meet in closed session (which IS allowed
    under the Brown Act) and make a recommendation to the trustees to grant or
    deny tenure. Most of the time, it is pro forma; the senate accepts the
    decision of the committee. Most of the time, but not always. Last year, at out
    sister college, the tenure committee voted to deny tenure, the senate
    voted to recommend it, and the trustees decided to deny. At our college this
    year, we have the opposite; the committee strongly recommended tenure, the
    senate voted to recommend no tenure. In my opinion, these events
    demonstrate a problem with the process, which for us is fairly restrictive in what
    information we can collect.
     
    Alfred Hochstaedter <ahochs...@mpc.edu> Feb 25 12:54AM ^
     
    Very well stated, Steve. Much much better than my earlier replies.
     
    -Fred Hochstaedter
    MPC Academic Senate President
     
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cccse...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stev...@aol.com
    Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 4:16 PM
    To: cccse...@googlegroups.com
    Subject: Re: [Google Group CCCSenates] Re: Query Regarding Tenure Review, Academic Se
     
    The Woodland College example practically sends shivers up my spine. I agree with those who say the senate should not be involved. That is, unless the senate is the collective bargaining agent for the faculty. Does that situation exist anywhere in the CC system? Otherwise, GET OUT NOW, before it's too late.
     
    As Beth pointed out, the senate can and should work with the bargaining agent to establish the evaluation PROCESS. That process should then be part of the collective bargaining agreement. Theoretically, that process could (and apparently does in some places) involve the senate. But why would you want it to?
     
    Ignoring the very scary prospects of a lawsuit, it still seems like a bad idea for the entire senate to review the recommendations of the tenure review committee. The committee has been given the responsibility for evaluating the candidate, presumably using classroom observations and student evaluations, and relying on the professional expertise of members in the same or a related department. What information would other senate members have that could possibly justify overriding the recommendations of the committee? Would you want YOUR evaluation to be subject to such a review?
     
    I could see the senate playing a role in an appeal process, but, even then, not involving the entire senate.
     
    Steve Gold
    Cypress College (retired)
     
    In a message dated 2/24/2010 3:41:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, gjga...@gmail.com writes:
    This has been a very hot issue at our college, Woodland Community College. As a senate, we review the recommendations of the tenure committee, and ask questions of them. Then we meet in closed session (which IS allowed under the Brown Act) and make a recommendation to the trustees to grant or deny tenure. Most of the time, it is pro forma; the senate accepts the decision of the committee. Most of the time, but not always. Last year, at out sister college, the tenure committee voted to deny tenure, the senate voted to recommend it, and the trustees decided to deny. At our college this year, we have the opposite; the committee strongly recommended tenure, the senate voted to recommend no tenure. In my opinion, these events demonstrate a problem with the process, which for us is fairly restrictive in what information we can collect.
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCCSenates" group.
    This group has NOT been established or endorsed by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges or its Executive Board. This discussion group is not moderated, and any opinion expressed is solely that of its author.
    To post to this group, send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
    Cherie Dickey <jerry...@hotmail.com> Feb 25 03:41AM ^
     
    You can take the Past President out of the Senate, but you can't take the Senate out of the Past President. Thanks for all of your input, Steve (Cypress College Senator Emeritus) and for staying involved in your retirement.
     
    Cherie Dickey
    Cypress College
    Curriculum Chair
     
     
     
     
     
    From: ahochs...@mpc.edu
    To: cccse...@googlegroups.com
    Subject: RE: [Google Group CCCSenates] Re: Query Regarding Tenure Review, Academic Se
    Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:54:38 +0000
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Very well stated, Steve. Much much better than my earlier
    replies.
     

     
    -Fred Hochstaedter
     
    MPC Academic Senate President
     

     
     
     
     
     
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com
    [mailto:cccse...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stev...@aol.com
     
    Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 4:16 PM
     
    To: cccse...@googlegroups.com
     
    Subject: Re: [Google Group CCCSenates] Re: Query Regarding Tenure
    Review, Academic Se
     
     
     
     
     

     
     
     
     
     
    The Woodland College example practically sends shivers up my
    spine. I agree with those who say the senate should not be
    involved. That is, unless the senate is the collective bargaining agent
    for the faculty. Does that situation exist anywhere in the CC
    system? Otherwise, GET OUT NOW, before it's too late.
     
     
     
     
     

     
     
     
     
     
    As Beth pointed out, the senate can and should work with the
    bargaining agent to establish the evaluation PROCESS. That process should
    then be part of the collective bargaining agreement. Theoretically, that
    process could (and apparently does in some places) involve the senate.
    But why would you want it to?
     
     
     
     
     

     
     
     
     
     
    Ignoring the very scary prospects of a lawsuit, it still
    seems like a bad idea for the entire senate to review the recommendations of
    the tenure review committee. The committee has been given the
    responsibility for evaluating the candidate, presumably using classroom
    observations and student evaluations, and relying on the professional
    expertise of members in the same or a related department. What
    information would other senate members have that could
    possibly justify overriding the recommendations of the
    committee? Would you want YOUR evaluation to be subject to such
    a review?
     
     
     
     
     

     
     
     
     
     
    I could see the senate playing a role in an appeal process,
    but, even then, not involving the entire senate.
     
     
     
     
     

     
     
     
     
     
    Steve Gold
     
     
     
     
     
    Cypress College (retired)
     
     
     
     
     

     
     
     
     
     
    In a message dated 2/24/2010 3:41:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,
    gjga...@gmail.com writes:
     
     
     
     
     
    This has been a very hot issue at
    our college, Woodland Community College. As a senate, we review the
    recommendations of the tenure committee, and ask questions of them. Then
    we meet in closed session (which IS allowed under the Brown Act) and make a
    recommendation to the trustees to grant or deny tenure. Most of the time,
    it is pro forma; the senate accepts the decision of the committee. Most
    of the time, but not always. Last year, at out sister college, the tenure
    committee voted to deny tenure, the senate voted to recommend it, and the
    trustees decided to deny. At our college this year, we have the opposite;
    the committee strongly recommended tenure, the senate voted to recommend no
    tenure. In my opinion, these events demonstrate a problem with the
    process, which for us is fairly restrictive in what information we can
    collect.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

     
     
     
    --
     
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
    "CCCSenates" group.
     
    This group has NOT been established or endorsed by the Academic Senate for
    California Community Colleges or its Executive Board. This discussion group is
    not moderated, and any opinion expressed is solely that of its author.
     
    To post to this group, send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com
     
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
     
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    --
     
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCCSenates" group.
     
    This group has NOT been established or endorsed by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges or its Executive Board. This discussion group is not moderated, and any opinion expressed is solely that of its author.
     
    To post to this group, send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com
     
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
     
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
    _________________________________________________________________
    Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
    http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/
     
    "George J. Galamba" <gjga...@gmail.com> Feb 24 08:21PM -0800 ^
     
    This is the most provocative dialogue I've ever seen on this listserv.
    Although I value all the opinions I've heard, are there any publications on
    the role of the senate in tenure from the State Senate, the AAUP, etc? In
    my career, I've only taught at the CC level (except for a Fulbright stint in
    Yugoslavia years ago.) What is the relationship between senates and tenure
    for our colleagues at four-year institutions? I have always been under the
    impression that the decision of offering/denying tenure is a fundamental
    responsibility of senates--but am beginning to believe I may be wrong. The
    concept of turning tenure decisions over to the union instead of the senate
    seems anathema to me. I can't imagine the senate not having a role, but I
    agree that the role should be carefully defined and based on objective
    criteria. I believe that the role of the union is job and working condition
    protection; the senate should focus on the curriculum and ensuring that
    those who are honored the award of tenure are worthy of it. (Clearly not
    the prevailing opinion.)
     
     
    Stev...@aol.com Feb 25 12:00AM -0500 ^
     
    George,

    I'm talking too much, but I think a clarification is in order. I think
    what most of us are saying is that tenure recommendations should be made by
    small committees made up principally of faculty and charged with thoroughly
    evaluating the merits of the candidates. The senate should not be
    second-guessing those committees.

    The job of the senate should be to work with the union to design the
    process, ensuring that the rights of the individual are protected while also
    ensuring that only quality instructors are granted tenure.

    The union then has the responsibility to negotiate with the Board to
    incorporate the process in the district/union contract. I suppose the process
    could be just a district policy, but I think having it in the contract
    provides better protection for the tenure candidate.

    But you're right, I think the senate has a responsibility to ensure that
    the tenure process is good for the academy.

    Steve

    In a message dated 2/24/2010 8:21:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
    gjga...@gmail.com writes:
     
    This is the most provocative dialogue I've ever seen on this listserv.
    Although I value all the opinions I've heard, are there any publications on
    the role of the senate in tenure from the State Senate, the AAUP, etc? In
    my career, I've only taught at the CC level (except for a Fulbright stint in
    Yugoslavia years ago.) What is the relationship between senates and
    tenure for our colleagues at four-year institutions? I have always been under
    the impression that the decision of offering/denying tenure is a fundamental
    responsibility of senates--but am beginning to believe I may be wrong.
    The concept of turning tenure decisions over to the union instead of the
    senate seems anathema to me. I can't imagine the senate not having a role,
    but I agree that the role should be carefully defined and based on objective
    criteria. I believe that the role of the union is job and working
    condition protection; the senate should focus on the curriculum and ensuring that
    those who are honored the award of tenure are worthy of it. (Clearly not
    the prevailing opinion.)
     
    Stev...@aol.com Feb 24 09:54PM -0500 ^
     
    I want to back up and offer a response to Tom's original question, which
    was this:
    If the senate reviews a tenure recommendation, and the faculty member
    under consideration is a member of the senate, should/can the faculty member be
    excluded from the closed session?

    Assuming the closed session itself is legal, and I believe it would be, I
    doubt there is any clear-cut answer to Tom's question from a legal
    standpoint. However, I would advise NOT excluding the faculty member.

    Several of us have already said that we don't think the process is a good
    one, and I think you run a greater risk of exposing the senate to a lawsuit
    if you exclude the faculty member from the discussion. Certainly, if a
    favorable recommendation of the tenure review committee is reversed, without
    the faculty member present, it will raise questions about the process
    itself and the reasons for the reversal. Speculation about the REAL reasons for
    the decision will run wild, and faith in the process will be damaged or
    destroyed.

    So I recommend that the faculty member be allowed to be present, even if he
    or she is NOT a member of the senate, so that he or she can hear the
    arguments presented and offer rebuttals. I'd also strongly recommend that the
    faculty member have a union grievance rep present.

    On the other hand, if you truly believe the senate's approval is necessary
    and proper, excluding the faculty member will obviously have the effect of
    encouraging an open and honest discussion, and those brave enough to argue
    against granting tenure are less likely to end up being sued.

    I am assuming the senate has the power to make the final determination
    about the recommendation that is made to the Board or its representative. If
    the senate's concurrence or dissent is just an attachment to the
    committee's recommendation, it might make the process more defensible and lessen the
    likelihood of a lawsuit, but not by much.

    Steve Gold
    Senator Emeritus (yeah, it's official!)
    Cypress College
     
    David Morse <dmo...@lbcc.edu> Feb 24 07:25PM -0800 ^
     
    I agree with the previous comments by Steve and others that the tenure review process at Tom's college should be revised. I think Steve's analysis in an earlier message outlined very clearly some of the reasons that this should not be a senate decision.
     
    However, I am also going to assume that revising the process would take as long at Tom's college as it would everywhere I have worked. Such a change is rarely made overnight. In the meantime, Tom's senate obviously has an immediate issue to deal with concerning a tenure review that is happening now, so "revise your process," while perhaps the best overall answer, is not useful at the moment.
     
    Therefore, regarding the immediate issue, I would not only advise against excluding the faculty member in question, but I would also advise against having the closed session at all. According to what the judge said in our lawsuit, such a closed session would be a violation of the Brown Act. For your own safety, I would suggest having the discussion in the open this year and getting an immediate start on revising the process for the future.
     
    David Morse
    Long Beach City College
     
     
     
    Tom Heaney <the...@frc.edu> Feb 24 10:21AM -0800 ^
     
    Our college is small enough that it is a Senate of the Whole -- that
    is, all full time faculty (tenured and untenured) are full members of
    the Senate. The Senate is preparing to meet to discuss and approve
    the actions of the Tenure Review Committee, but we are, for the first
    time, concerned about the presence of the untenured faculty who are
    being evaluated being present in the Senate during the discussion of
    their evaluation.
     
    The Executive Committee of the Senate is in agreement that the
    discussions will be done legally in a Close Session of the Senate.
    However, there is a question about the individuals under review:
     
    It is my understanding of the process, the Brown Act, and
    particularly, the Furtado decision, that the subjects of the review
    process should be (and can be) excluded from discussion. But the
    problem is that these faculty are also members of the Senate, and some
    members of the Executive Committee think that the faculty under review
    should be allowed to attend and that legally we can’t exclude them.
     
    Does anyone have any experience with this or advice to give? Does the
    Brown Act allow exclusion of Senate members when the Senate discusses
    their evaluation?
     
    Thanks,
    --Tom Heaney
    Chair, Division of Arts and Sciences
    Feather River College
     
    Alfred Hochstaedter <ahochs...@mpc.edu> Feb 24 06:39PM ^
     
    I have no idea what the Brown Act actually says. But to me, it is totally inappropriate for the person being evaluated to be present during his or her evaluation. I think the Common Sense Act should trump whatever interpretations of the Brown Act come into play here.
     
    Just one man's opinion.
     
    Fred Hochstaedter
    Academic Senate President
    Monterey Peninsula College
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cccse...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Heaney
    Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:22 AM
    To: CCCSenates
    Subject: [Google Group CCCSenates] Query Regarding Tenure Review, Academic Senate, and the Brown Act
     
    Our college is small enough that it is a Senate of the Whole -- that
    is, all full time faculty (tenured and untenured) are full members of
    the Senate. The Senate is preparing to meet to discuss and approve
    the actions of the Tenure Review Committee, but we are, for the first
    time, concerned about the presence of the untenured faculty who are
    being evaluated being present in the Senate during the discussion of
    their evaluation.
     
    The Executive Committee of the Senate is in agreement that the
    discussions will be done legally in a Close Session of the Senate.
    However, there is a question about the individuals under review:
     
    It is my understanding of the process, the Brown Act, and
    particularly, the Furtado decision, that the subjects of the review
    process should be (and can be) excluded from discussion. But the
    problem is that these faculty are also members of the Senate, and some
    members of the Executive Committee think that the faculty under review
    should be allowed to attend and that legally we can't exclude them.
     
    Does anyone have any experience with this or advice to give? Does the
    Brown Act allow exclusion of Senate members when the Senate discusses
    their evaluation?
     
    Thanks,
    --Tom Heaney
    Chair, Division of Arts and Sciences
    Feather River College
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCCSenates" group.
    This group has NOT been established or endorsed by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges or its Executive Board. This discussion group is not moderated, and any opinion expressed is solely that of its author.
    To post to this group, send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
    "Paula Demanett" <paula.d...@fresnocitycollege.edu> Feb 24 10:44AM -0800 ^
     
    Tenure is a matter of union contract and considered a personnel action at Fresno City College. Therefore, it is a confidential matter. Is this true at your college?

    Paula Demanett
    Past President, Academic Senate
    Fresno City College
     
    ________________________________
     
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Tom Heaney
    Sent: Wed 2/24/2010 10:21 AM
    To: CCCSenates
    Subject: [Google Group CCCSenates] Query Regarding Tenure Review, Academic Senate, and the Brown Act
     
     
     
    Our college is small enough that it is a Senate of the Whole -- that
    is, all full time faculty (tenured and untenured) are full members of
    the Senate. The Senate is preparing to meet to discuss and approve
    the actions of the Tenure Review Committee, but we are, for the first
    time, concerned about the presence of the untenured faculty who are
    being evaluated being present in the Senate during the discussion of
    their evaluation.
     
    The Executive Committee of the Senate is in agreement that the
    discussions will be done legally in a Close Session of the Senate.
    However, there is a question about the individuals under review:
     
    It is my understanding of the process, the Brown Act, and
    particularly, the Furtado decision, that the subjects of the review
    process should be (and can be) excluded from discussion. But the
    problem is that these faculty are also members of the Senate, and some
    members of the Executive Committee think that the faculty under review
    should be allowed to attend and that legally we can't exclude them.
     
    Does anyone have any experience with this or advice to give? Does the
    Brown Act allow exclusion of Senate members when the Senate discusses
    their evaluation?
     
    Thanks,
    --Tom Heaney
    Chair, Division of Arts and Sciences
    Feather River College
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCCSenates" group.
    This group has NOT been established or endorsed by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges or its Executive Board. This discussion group is not moderated, and any opinion expressed is solely that of its author.
    To post to this group, send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
    Alfred Hochstaedter <ahochs...@mpc.edu> Feb 24 06:47PM ^
     
    This is true at MPC.
     
    -Fred
     
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cccse...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paula Demanett
    Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:44 AM
    To: cccse...@googlegroups.com
    Subject: RE: [Google Group CCCSenates] Query Regarding Tenure Review, Academic Senate, and the Brown Act
     
    Tenure is a matter of union contract and considered a personnel action at Fresno City College. Therefore, it is a confidential matter. Is this true at your college?
     
    Paula Demanett
    Past President, Academic Senate
    Fresno City College
     
    ________________________________
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Tom Heaney
    Sent: Wed 2/24/2010 10:21 AM
    To: CCCSenates
    Subject: [Google Group CCCSenates] Query Regarding Tenure Review, Academic Senate, and the Brown Act
     
    Our college is small enough that it is a Senate of the Whole -- that
    is, all full time faculty (tenured and untenured) are full members of
    the Senate. The Senate is preparing to meet to discuss and approve
    the actions of the Tenure Review Committee, but we are, for the first
    time, concerned about the presence of the untenured faculty who are
    being evaluated being present in the Senate during the discussion of
    their evaluation.
     
    The Executive Committee of the Senate is in agreement that the
    discussions will be done legally in a Close Session of the Senate.
    However, there is a question about the individuals under review:
     
    It is my understanding of the process, the Brown Act, and
    particularly, the Furtado decision, that the subjects of the review
    process should be (and can be) excluded from discussion. But the
    problem is that these faculty are also members of the Senate, and some
    members of the Executive Committee think that the faculty under review
    should be allowed to attend and that legally we can't exclude them.
     
    Does anyone have any experience with this or advice to give? Does the
    Brown Act allow exclusion of Senate members when the Senate discusses
    their evaluation?
     
    Thanks,
    --Tom Heaney
    Chair, Division of Arts and Sciences
    Feather River College
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCCSenates" group.
    This group has NOT been established or endorsed by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges or its Executive Board. This discussion group is not moderated, and any opinion expressed is solely that of its author.
    To post to this group, send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
    "Beth Smith" <Beth....@gcccd.edu> Feb 24 10:57AM -0800 ^
     
    Hi all,
     
    As the tenure review coordinator at my college, I have a couple thoughts
    on the matter that may or may not help.
     
    First, I question the process of allowing a faculty member's evaluation
    to be reviewed by the senate. Evaluations are confidential, and there
    should be provisions in the contract or human resources for protection
    of the individual. More than the Brown Act, I think that as a candidate
    under review, I would want to know that I am protected and that I have
    due process for appeal.
     
    Second, the use of closed session by senates has been a point of legal
    challenge in the past. Closed session meetings are allowed for
    discussing legal matters and for performance review of employees of the
    board, and in this case, that would be the senate. Senates do not
    employ faculty, so I recommend caution when using closed session for
    evaluations of faculty.
     
    Beth
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cccse...@googlegroups.com]
    On Behalf Of Tom Heaney
    Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:22 AM
    To: CCCSenates
    Subject: [Google Group CCCSenates] Query Regarding Tenure Review,
    Academic Senate, and the Brown Act
     
    Our college is small enough that it is a Senate of the Whole -- that
    is, all full time faculty (tenured and untenured) are full members of
    the Senate. The Senate is preparing to meet to discuss and approve
    the actions of the Tenure Review Committee, but we are, for the first
    time, concerned about the presence of the untenured faculty who are
    being evaluated being present in the Senate during the discussion of
    their evaluation.
     
    The Executive Committee of the Senate is in agreement that the
    discussions will be done legally in a Close Session of the Senate.
    However, there is a question about the individuals under review:
     
    It is my understanding of the process, the Brown Act, and
    particularly, the Furtado decision, that the subjects of the review
    process should be (and can be) excluded from discussion. But the
    problem is that these faculty are also members of the Senate, and some
    members of the Executive Committee think that the faculty under review
    should be allowed to attend and that legally we can't exclude them.
     
    Does anyone have any experience with this or advice to give? Does the
    Brown Act allow exclusion of Senate members when the Senate discusses
    their evaluation?
     
    Thanks,
    --Tom Heaney
    Chair, Division of Arts and Sciences
    Feather River College
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
    Groups "CCCSenates" group.
    This group has NOT been established or endorsed by the Academic Senate
    for California Community Colleges or its Executive Board. This
    discussion group is not moderated, and any opinion expressed is solely
    that of its author.
    To post to this group, send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
    Tom Heaney <the...@frc.edu> Feb 24 12:22PM -0800 ^
     
    Thanks, Everyone, So far,
     
    The evaluation process under tenure review is indeed confidential,
    hence the need for a Closed Session as per the rules of the Brown
    Act. Our union contract specifically states that the recommendations
    of the Tenure Review Committee are submitted "to the Academic Senate
    which in turn makes its recommendation to the Superintendent/President
    who submits her/his recommendation to the Board of Trustees." In
    order to discuss those recommendations the evaluations would have to
    be discussed.
     
    Do the Academic Senates at other colleges take action on tenure in
    this manner, or is it strickly the Tenure Committee?
     
    [I should say that I would actually be open to the idea that there is
    something fundamentally wrong with our college's procedure in this
    regard.]
     
    --Tom
     
    "Zarske, John" <Zarsk...@sac.edu> Feb 24 12:57PM -0800 ^
     
    Here's what our contact says at Santa Ana College
     
    INSTITUTIONAL TENURE REVIEW
     
    8.9.1 The appropriate vice-president(s) will meet with representatives
    of FARSCCD and the college
    Academic Senate (1 representative each) to review the
    evaluation report and recommendations prior to
    submission to the college president. The vice-president(s)
    will review the reports with the college president
    who will then forward the recommendation to Human Resources.
     
    Perhaps the senate president or whole executive committee should review
    tenure evaluations as representatives of the senate. It does seem like
    you open yourself up to confidentiality issues when you open it up to
    the whole senate.
     
    This year, I had to discuss not granting tenure to a faculty member with
    the CIO. That's not something that should include to the whole senate.
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cccse...@googlegroups.com]
    On Behalf Of Tom Heaney
    Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:22 PM
    To: CCCSenates
    Subject: [Google Group CCCSenates] Re: Query Regarding Tenure Review,
    Academic Senate, and the Brown Act
     
    Thanks, Everyone, So far,
     
    The evaluation process under tenure review is indeed confidential,
    hence the need for a Closed Session as per the rules of the Brown
    Act. Our union contract specifically states that the recommendations
    of the Tenure Review Committee are submitted "to the Academic Senate
    which in turn makes its recommendation to the Superintendent/President
    who submits her/his recommendation to the Board of Trustees." In
    order to discuss those recommendations the evaluations would have to
    be discussed.
     
    Do the Academic Senates at other colleges take action on tenure in
    this manner, or is it strickly the Tenure Committee?
     
    [I should say that I would actually be open to the idea that there is
    something fundamentally wrong with our college's procedure in this
    regard.]
     
    --Tom
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
    Groups "CCCSenates" group.
    This group has NOT been established or endorsed by the Academic Senate
    for California Community Colleges or its Executive Board. This
    discussion group is not moderated, and any opinion expressed is solely
    that of its author.
    To post to this group, send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
    "Kenneth Collins" <KCOL...@fullcoll.edu> Feb 24 01:21PM -0800 ^
     
    I don't respond to this listserve very often, but this seems like a
    dangerous issue for senates. I was amazed to hear that academic senates
    play a role in tenure review at some colleges. To me, tenure review
    seems like a purely contractual issue - how did the senates get involved
    in the first place? I can't imagine where tenure review would fit in
    the 10+1, other than under "matters mutually agreed upon".
     
    In the North Orange County CCD, faculty tenure committees are
    individualized to each candidate and consist of the division dean and
    three faculty members (usually two from the same department and one from
    another department within the same division). The committee's
    recommendation goes to the college president and then on to the board.
    The senate plays no role in our tenure review.
     
    I would caution senates about getting involved with this issue. Tenure
    and employment issues occasionally lead lawsuits and other
    unpleasantries. Unions are equipped to represent faculty on those types
    of issues, but senates are not. If I were you, I would turn this over
    to your union and wash your hands of the whole process. Unless it is in
    the 10+1 (or reasonably related to it) I would avoid it.
     
    Ken Collins
    Senate Past-President
     
    Kenneth P. Collins, Ph.D.
    Professor of Biology
    Fullerton College
    321 E. Chapman Ave.
    Fullerton, CA 92832-2095
    kcol...@fullcoll.edu
    714-992-7428
     
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cccse...@googlegroups.com]
    On Behalf Of Zarske, John
    Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:57 PM
    To: cccse...@googlegroups.com
    Subject: RE: [Google Group CCCSenates] Re: Query Regarding Tenure
    Review, Academic Senate, and the Brown Act
     
     
    Here's what our contact says at Santa Ana College
     
    INSTITUTIONAL TENURE REVIEW
     
    8.9.1 The appropriate vice-president(s) will meet with representatives
    of FARSCCD and the college
    Academic Senate (1 representative each) to review the
    evaluation report and recommendations prior to
    submission to the college president. The vice-president(s)
    will review the reports with the college president
    who will then forward the recommendation to Human Resources.
     
    Perhaps the senate president or whole executive committee should review
    tenure evaluations as representatives of the senate. It does seem like
    you open yourself up to confidentiality issues when you open it up to
    the whole senate.
     
    This year, I had to discuss not granting tenure to a faculty member with
    the CIO. That's not something that should include to the whole senate.
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cccse...@googlegroups.com]
    On Behalf Of Tom Heaney
    Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:22 PM
    To: CCCSenates
    Subject: [Google Group CCCSenates] Re: Query Regarding Tenure Review,
    Academic Senate, and the Brown Act
     
    Thanks, Everyone, So far,
     
    The evaluation process under tenure review is indeed confidential, hence
    the need for a Closed Session as per the rules of the Brown Act. Our
    union contract specifically states that the recommendations of the
    Tenure Review Committee are submitted "to the Academic Senate which in
    turn makes its recommendation to the Superintendent/President who
    submits her/his recommendation to the Board of Trustees." In order to
    discuss those recommendations the evaluations would have to be
    discussed.
     
    Do the Academic Senates at other colleges take action on tenure in this
    manner, or is it strickly the Tenure Committee?
     
    [I should say that I would actually be open to the idea that there is
    something fundamentally wrong with our college's procedure in this
    regard.]
     
    --Tom
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
    Groups "CCCSenates" group. This group has NOT been established or
    endorsed by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges or its
    Executive Board. This discussion group is not moderated, and any
    opinion expressed is solely that of its author. To post to this group,
    send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this
    group, send email to CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
    Groups "CCCSenates" group. This group has NOT been established or
    endorsed by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges or its
    Executive Board. This discussion group is not moderated, and any
    opinion expressed is solely that of its author. To post to this group,
    send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this
    group, send email to CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
    David Morse <dmo...@lbcc.edu> Feb 24 03:01PM -0800 ^
     
    Hi everyone,
    I just want to echo what Beth said here. My college's senate was sued
    for Brown Act violations a few years ago, and it was largely about our
    use of closed sessions. The judge's directions to us were pretty
    specific: we could only go into closed session to discuss legal
    matters, and only then if we had our attorney present. We were told
    that since we do not hire and fire employees, we could not go into
    closed session to discuss personnel. I would therefore agree with
    Beth that you should be very cautious about any use of closed sessions
    in tenure discussions.
     
    As far as the tenure process at our college goes, the evaluee is a non-
    voting member of the committee and therefore has a right to be present
    for all discussions. We do not allow any tenure review meetings to be
    held behind closed doors.
     
    David Morse
    Long Beach City College
     
     
    On Feb 24, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Beth Smith wrote:
     
     
    David Morse <dmo...@lbcc.edu> Feb 24 03:04PM -0800 ^
     
    I have been a member of this group almost since it started, so I do
    not even remember how we all joined. My college has a new senate
    president. Can anyone remind me how I go about getting him signed up
    for this group?
     
    Thanks,
     
    David Morse
    Long Beach City College
     
    Alfred Hochstaedter <ahochs...@mpc.edu> Feb 24 11:09PM ^
     
    Sounds like a good reason for the Academic Senate as a whole to get out of the business of tenure evaluation.
     
    Trying to make a decision like this with the evaluee present still sounds like crazy talk to me.
     
    -Fred Hochstaedter
    MPC Academic Senate President
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cccse...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Morse
    Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 3:01 PM
    To: cccse...@googlegroups.com
    Subject: Re: [Google Group CCCSenates] Query Regarding Tenure Review, Academic Senate, and the Brown Act
     
    Hi everyone,
    I just want to echo what Beth said here. My college's senate was sued
    for Brown Act violations a few years ago, and it was largely about our
    use of closed sessions. The judge's directions to us were pretty
    specific: we could only go into closed session to discuss legal
    matters, and only then if we had our attorney present. We were told
    that since we do not hire and fire employees, we could not go into
    closed session to discuss personnel. I would therefore agree with
    Beth that you should be very cautious about any use of closed sessions
    in tenure discussions.
     
    As far as the tenure process at our college goes, the evaluee is a non-
    voting member of the committee and therefore has a right to be present
    for all discussions. We do not allow any tenure review meetings to be
    held behind closed doors.
     
    David Morse
    Long Beach City College
     
     
    On Feb 24, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Beth Smith wrote:
     
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCCSenates" group.
    This group has NOT been established or endorsed by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges or its Executive Board. This discussion group is not moderated, and any opinion expressed is solely that of its author.
    To post to this group, send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
    "Beth Smith" <Beth....@gcccd.edu> Feb 24 03:16PM -0800 ^
     
    On the matter of the role of the senate in tenure review:
     
    Education Code sections 87600-87683 cover tenure and evaluations of
    faculty. In section 87601.1.a it says
     
    "In those districts where tenure evaluation procedures are collectively
    bargained pursuant to Section 3543 of the Government Code, the faculty's
    exclusive representative shall consult with the academic senate prior to
    engaging in collective bargaining on these procedures."
     
    That's the only place where the senate is mentioned. Senates and unions
    should consult on the processes used for tenure review and, more
    generally, for faculty evaluation. The processes developed through
    faculty to faculty consultation could define a role for the academic
    senate.
     
    Beth
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cccse...@googlegroups.com]
    On Behalf Of David Morse
    Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 3:01 PM
    To: cccse...@googlegroups.com
    Subject: Re: [Google Group CCCSenates] Query Regarding Tenure Review,
    Academic Senate, and the Brown Act
     
    Hi everyone,
    I just want to echo what Beth said here. My college's senate was sued
    for Brown Act violations a few years ago, and it was largely about our
    use of closed sessions. The judge's directions to us were pretty
    specific: we could only go into closed session to discuss legal
    matters, and only then if we had our attorney present. We were told
    that since we do not hire and fire employees, we could not go into
    closed session to discuss personnel. I would therefore agree with
    Beth that you should be very cautious about any use of closed sessions
    in tenure discussions.
     
    As far as the tenure process at our college goes, the evaluee is a non-
    voting member of the committee and therefore has a right to be present
    for all discussions. We do not allow any tenure review meetings to be
    held behind closed doors.
     
    David Morse
    Long Beach City College
     
     
    On Feb 24, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Beth Smith wrote:
     
    > solely that of its author.
    > To post to this group, send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com
    > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
    > For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
    Groups "CCCSenates" group.
    This group has NOT been established or endorsed by the Academic Senate
    for California Community Colleges or its Executive Board. This
    discussion group is not moderated, and any opinion expressed is solely
    that of its author.
    To post to this group, send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
    "Smith, June" <smi...@lahc.edu> Feb 24 03:33PM -0800 ^
     
    Harbor College has always treated this as a union issue. We are not
    involved as a Senate.
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cccse...@googlegroups.com]
    On Behalf Of Kenneth Collins
    Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 1:21 PM
    To: cccse...@googlegroups.com
    Subject: RE: [Google Group CCCSenates] Re: Query Regarding Tenure
    Review, Academic Senate, and the Brown Act
     
    I don't respond to this listserve very often, but this seems like a
    dangerous issue for senates. I was amazed to hear that academic senates
    play a role in tenure review at some colleges. To me, tenure review
    seems like a purely contractual issue - how did the senates get involved
    in the first place? I can't imagine where tenure review would fit in
    the 10+1, other than under "matters mutually agreed upon".
     
    In the North Orange County CCD, faculty tenure committees are
    individualized to each candidate and consist of the division dean and
    three faculty members (usually two from the same department and one from
    another department within the same division). The committee's
    recommendation goes to the college president and then on to the board.
    The senate plays no role in our tenure review.
     
    I would caution senates about getting involved with this issue. Tenure
    and employment issues occasionally lead lawsuits and other
    unpleasantries. Unions are equipped to represent faculty on those types
    of issues, but senates are not. If I were you, I would turn this over
    to your union and wash your hands of the whole process. Unless it is in
    the 10+1 (or reasonably related to it) I would avoid it.
     
    Ken Collins
    Senate Past-President
     
    Kenneth P. Collins, Ph.D.
    Professor of Biology
    Fullerton College
    321 E. Chapman Ave.
    Fullerton, CA 92832-2095
    kcol...@fullcoll.edu
    714-992-7428
     
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cccse...@googlegroups.com]
    On Behalf Of Zarske, John
    Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:57 PM
    To: cccse...@googlegroups.com
    Subject: RE: [Google Group CCCSenates] Re: Query Regarding Tenure
    Review, Academic Senate, and the Brown Act
     
     
    Here's what our contact says at Santa Ana College
     
    INSTITUTIONAL TENURE REVIEW
     
    8.9.1 The appropriate vice-president(s) will meet with representatives
    of FARSCCD and the college
    Academic Senate (1 representative each) to review the
    evaluation report and recommendations prior to
    submission to the college president. The vice-president(s)
    will review the reports with the college president
    who will then forward the recommendation to Human Resources.
     
    Perhaps the senate president or whole executive committee should review
    tenure evaluations as representatives of the senate. It does seem like
    you open yourself up to confidentiality issues when you open it up to
    the whole senate.
     
    This year, I had to discuss not granting tenure to a faculty member with
    the CIO. That's not something that should include to the whole senate.
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cccse...@googlegroups.com]
    On Behalf Of Tom Heaney
    Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:22 PM
    To: CCCSenates
    Subject: [Google Group CCCSenates] Re: Query Regarding Tenure Review,
    Academic Senate, and the Brown Act
     
    Thanks, Everyone, So far,
     
    The evaluation process under tenure review is indeed confidential, hence
    the need for a Closed Session as per the rules of the Brown Act. Our
    union contract specifically states that the recommendations of the
    Tenure Review Committee are submitted "to the Academic Senate which in
    turn makes its recommendation to the Superintendent/President who
    submits her/his recommendation to the Board of Trustees." In order to
    discuss those recommendations the evaluations would have to be
    discussed.
     
    Do the Academic Senates at other colleges take action on tenure in this
    manner, or is it strickly the Tenure Committee?
     
    [I should say that I would actually be open to the idea that there is
    something fundamentally wrong with our college's procedure in this
    regard.]
     
    --Tom
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
    Groups "CCCSenates" group. This group has NOT been established or
    endorsed by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges or its
    Executive Board. This discussion group is not moderated, and any
    opinion expressed is solely that of its author. To post to this group,
    send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this
    group, send email to CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
    Groups "CCCSenates" group. This group has NOT been established or
    endorsed by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges or its
    Executive Board. This discussion group is not moderated, and any
    opinion expressed is solely that of its author. To post to this group,
    send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this
    group, send email to CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
    Groups "CCCSenates" group.
    This group has NOT been established or endorsed by the Academic Senate
    for California Community Colleges or its Executive Board. This
    discussion group is not moderated, and any opinion expressed is solely
    that of its author.
    To post to this group, send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
    "George J. Galamba" <gjga...@gmail.com> Feb 24 01:07PM -0800 ^
     
    This has been a very hot issue at our college, Woodland Community College.
    As a senate, we review the recommendations of the tenure committee, and ask
    questions of them. Then we meet in closed session (which IS allowed under
    the Brown Act) and make a recommendation to the trustees to grant or deny
    tenure. Most of the time, it is pro forma; the senate accepts the decision
    of the committee. Most of the time, but not always. Last year, at out
    sister college, the tenure committee voted to deny tenure, the senate voted
    to recommend it, and the trustees decided to deny. At our college this
    year, we have the opposite; the committee strongly recommended tenure, the
    senate voted to recommend no tenure. In my opinion, these events
    demonstrate a problem with the process, which for us is fairly restrictive
    in what information we can collect.
     
     
    Stev...@aol.com Feb 24 06:54PM -0500 ^
     
    Hi David,
    I think you might have been "drafted" into the group. Interested people
    should go to groups.google.com (you can also get there from the google
    homepage by clicking on "more" and "groups"). Put CCCSenates in the search box,
    and the procedure for becoming a member should be reasonably obvious. I
    have had to block the spammers, so I will have to give approval, which should
    be fairly quick.

    Steve Gold
    Cypress College (retired)

    In a message dated 2/24/2010 3:07:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
    dmo...@lbcc.edu writes:
     
    I have been a member of this group almost since it started, so I do
    not even remember how we all joined. My college has a new senate
    president. Can anyone remind me how I go about getting him signed up
    for this group?
     
    Thanks,
     
    David Morse
    Long Beach City College
     
    "Andrea Sibley-Smith" <asible...@sce.edu> Feb 24 04:10PM -0800 ^
     
    Dear Steve,
     
    Thanks for starting this group several years back! If I remember, at that
    time you invited all the then current senate presidents to join; however, as
    senate presidents come and go, many may not be aware of this group and might
    like to take part in discussions. I would like to make a suggestion, since
    you just retired and are looking for things to do (hah!), that an invitation
    to join is sent to current senate presidents. What do you think?
     

     
    Andrea Sibley-Smith
    SCE Academic Senate President/DSPS Faculty
    School of Continuing Education
    North Orange County Community College District
    Anaheim Campus
    1830 West Romneya Dr.
    Anaheim, CA 92801
    Cell: (714) 815-3991
    New email address: <mailto:asible...@sce.edu>; asible...@sce.edu
     
    _____
     
    From: cccse...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cccse...@googlegroups.com] On
    Behalf Of Stev...@aol.com
    Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 3:54 PM
    To: CCCSe...@googlegroups.com
    Cc: kr...@lbcc.edu
    Subject: Re: [Google Group CCCSenates] Joining this group
     

     
    Hi David,
     
    I think you might have been "drafted" into the group. Interested people
    should go to groups.google.com (you can also get there from the google
    homepage by clicking on "more" and "groups"). Put CCCSenates in the search
    box, and the procedure for becoming a member should be reasonably obvious.
    I have had to block the spammers, so I will have to give approval, which
    should be fairly quick.
     

     
    Steve Gold
     
    Cypress College (retired)
     

     
    In a message dated 2/24/2010 3:07:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
    dmo...@lbcc.edu writes:
     
    I have been a member of this group almost since it started, so I do
    not even remember how we all joined. My college has a new senate
    president. Can anyone remind me how I go about getting him signed up
    for this group?
     
    Thanks,
     
    David Morse
    Long Beach City College
     

     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
    "CCCSenates" group.
    This group has NOT been established or endorsed by the Academic Senate for
    California Community Colleges or its Executive Board. This discussion group
    is not moderated, and any opinion expressed is solely that of its author.
    To post to this group, send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates
     
    Stev...@aol.com Feb 24 07:27PM -0500 ^
     
    Hi Andrea,

    Last fall, I sent an e-mail to all current members of the group, asking
    that they forward the information about the group to people at their college
    who might be interested. That netted only about 3 additional members.
    However, I would be happy to send an invitation to all current senate
    presidents if someone can supply me with their e-mail addresses. Also, Richard
    Mahon of RCC has offered to distribute a flyer at the spring plenary.

    Steve
     
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CCCSenates" group.
This group has NOT been established or endorsed by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges or its Executive Board. This discussion group is not moderated, and any opinion expressed is solely that of its author.
To post to this group, send email to CCCSe...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to CCCSenates-...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CCCSenates

Michael Wangler

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 2:15:07 AM3/2/10
to cccse...@googlegroups.com
Dear Academic Senate Colleagues,

As most of you know, the ASCCC Executive Committee has asked us to weigh in on a deferred resolution from the 2009 Fall Plenary (scroll down to see a copy of their email). I appreciate their willingness to host several informational meetings via CCC Confer this week, however, I have some questions and concerns about the proposed process for determining the will of the field.  First, the way the information is presented in the email below doesn't adequately address the differences between the two referenced resolutions.  Resolution 4.02- Maintain Local Autonomy over Degree Requirements, which was adopted in Fall 2009, states that "ASCCC oppose any legislation that seeks to alter its curriculum, degree, and certificate requirements and reaffirm its support of local autonomy and faculty primacy over the same;"  

Whereas, Resolution 4.03- Response to AB 440: "Transfer Degrees," which was referred to the Executive Committee in Fall 2009, states that "ASCCC work with the Chancellor’s Office to change Title 5 regulations such that colleges would be permitted to offer associate degrees in a major or area of emphasis designated for transfer to students who complete GE (IGETC or CSU GE) and 60 transferable semester units with a minimum of 18 semester units in a major or area of emphasis, and require the colleges that do so to refrain from requiring additional local requirements that are not included in the GE package or the major/area of emphasis.”

Although both resolutions address recent attempts to legislate degree requirements, the intent of the two resolutions is clearly not the same.  The adopted resolution very clearly states that ASCCC will oppose legislation such as AB 440 and SB 1440, whereas, the referred resolution calls for ASCCC to work with the Chancellor's Office to add language to Title 5 that has the same net effect of AB 440/SB 1440--the only difference is that it will be self-imposed rather than legislated.  In my mind this is a significant difference between the resolutions, and should be identified as such. 

Given that the only adopted resolution states that ASCCC will oppose legislation such as AB 440 and SB 1440, I'm curious to know what we are doing to actively oppose these?  Has there been any dialog with Senator Padilla regarding SB 1440, and is there any guarantee that adopting Resolution 4.03 will stop the legislation from moving forward?

I also have a concern that the referred resolution, if adopted, will be in direct conflict with several recently adopted resolutions.  Resolution 4.03 would allow colleges to use the word "transfer" as part of a degree title, and would take away local control over decisions about local graduation requirements.  As per Title 5, we are already allowed to develop degrees that require 18 units in a major or area of emphasis, and we are already allowed to waive local graduation requirements as part of these degrees, but right now the decision lies in the hands of the local college, whereas the resolution would remove that local control.

I see two conflicts with this:  removing local control runs counter to ASCCC's longstanding position, including Resolutions 6.02 in Fall 2003, 18.03 in Fall 2007, and 4.02 in Fall 2009; and allowing the use of the word "transfer" runs counter to Resolution 9.02 that was adopted in Fall 2006.  Although this was addressed in the Q & A section of the Executive Committee's email, Resolution 4.03 does not resolve the concern that awarding such a degree is confusing to students because there is no guarantee that a "transfer" degree will actually result in students transferring (which, I believe, was the whole point of resolution 9.02 in 2006).  

Finally, I have concerns that we may be rushing to a decision on this without the opportunity for a proper debate, and may be pushing the envelope on proper procedure in doing so.  As was pointed out in the November 2009 Rostrum article "Herding Cats: Local Senates and the Brown Act", the use of email and other remote forms of communication are considered  "inappropriate tools to use in decision making," and local Senates are discouraged from using them in their deliberations and resolutions.

In sum, I don't think it's appropriate to take action on a resolution via electronic survey (especially a controversial resolution such as this one), and I would hope that the Executive Committee does not assume that the results of a remotely administered survey represent the will of the body.  The survey results (if favorable towards the resolution) could be used to help negotiate additional time with Senator Padilla, but I would hope that a full debate on this issue is allowed at spring session, and that the will of the body is determined only by delegate vote at session.

I look forward to hearing what others think about this.

Michael Wangler
Academic Senate President
Cuyamaca College
El Cajon, CA 92019





Dear Local Senate President:
 
The Academic Senate Executive Committee is in need of direction from the field relating to resolutions from the Fall 2009 Plenary. One resolution that was adopted (4.02) directed us to actively avoid the introduction of a California community college degree options in legislation. A second resolution (4.03 and its amendment 4.03.01) was referred and had, as its goal, the same intent as 4.02 –  it defined an action that sought to prevent our degrees from being legislated. It called for Title 5 language to be drafted that would accomplish the same thing as the proposed legislation, effectively making the legislation moot and delineating a degree option in Title 5 that colleges currently can offer. A third resolution, 4.04 and its amendment 4.04.01, was referred and also addressed this topic.
 
Due to the legislative cycle, if we wait until Spring 2010 to reconsider resolution 4.03, any action we might take would likely be too late to prevent legislation from being passed. Senate Bill 1440 has been introduced by Senator Padilla and is comparable to the bill discussed at the Fall 2009 Plenary. The current text of the bill (as of February 23, 2010) has been provided to you as an attachment and its status can be checked at any time by going to http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/SB_1440/. If we are to take effective action, we need to act soon, as the bill is already moving through the legislative process. Therefore, the Executive Committee tasked a subcommittee to develop materials informing the field about the issues surrounding the idea of a transfer degree and to provide an opportunity for field discussions and, ultimately, direction to the Executive Committee. We encourage you to read the attached information and invite you and/or your delegate to join us on one of the following calls:
 
Monday, March 1, 1:30 – 3:00pm
Tuesday, March 2, 9:00 – 10:30am / Tuesday, March 2, 3:00 – 4:30pm Wednesday, March 3, 12:30 – 2:00pm / Wednesday, March 3, 4:00 – 5:30pm Thursday, March 4, 10:00 – 11:30am
 
CCCConfer Call-in number: (888) 886-3951                        Pass Code: 932646
 
Following these informational meetings, the Executive Committee will distribute a short survey to determine the will of the field. Please expect to receive the survey no later than March 8. We will need your response by March 12. You are encouraged to discuss this topic with your local senate in order to arrive at a consensus as to how you believe the Academic Senate should proceed.
 
We look forward to exploring this topic with you further,
 
Academic Senate Executive Committee
 
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages