Ventura College Academic Senate
Minutes      Thursday, 3 November 2011      MCW-312

I.	Call to Order 
This meeting was called to order at 1:33 p.m. The following Senate members were present:
Algiers, Kammy—Math and Sciences
Arquilevich, Gabe—English and Learning Resources
Beynon, Sharon—English and Learning Resources
Chen, Albert—Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities
Fiumerodo, Gigi—Math and Sciences
Forde, Richard—Career and Technical Education
Gardner, Ty—Math and Sciences
Haines, Robbie—Senate Secretary
Hendricks, Bill—Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities
Mitchell, Nancy—Career and Technical Education
Morris, Terry—PE /Athletics, Communication Studies, Foreign Languages and ESL
Muñoz, Paula—Student Services
Parker, Jennifer—Career and Technical Education
Pauley, Mark—Senate Treasurer, Curriculum Co-chair
Sezzi, Peter—Senate President
The following guests were present:
Bricker, Susan—Registrar
Carrasco-Nungaray, Marian—Student Services
Chaparro, Tammi—Executive Director, ASVC
Lara-Cruz, Christopher—President, ASVC
Perez, Bernardo – VCCCD Trustee
Tovar, Antonio—Vice President, ASVC

II.	Public Comments 
No public comments were made.

III.	Acknowledgement of Guests
a.	Registrar Susan Bricker—Bricker confirmed current registration rules: students are required to pay enrollment fees the day they register and the registration system shuts down for backup at 10:00 p.m. This process will be in effect indefinitely, with one exception for waitlisted students. (The waitlist has not changed, a new system was tried but rejected after bugs were identified that could not be fixed in time.) Waitlisted students have until the end of the next business day to pay, so they must check their e-mail regularly. The e-mail from VC goes only to college e-mail accounts, so students must link that account to their personal accounts if they don’t regularly check their college e-mail accounts. During first week, though, this is not true—students added from waitlist into full-semester classes during the first week will not be dropped. The wait list process ceases to act at end of first week, then the add codes go into effect. Short-term classes have wait lists that cease to work before first day of class. When asked about students receiving financial aid, Bricker responded that those students are not affected because the above-described process is only for normal enrollment fees, non-resident tuition, etc. Board of Governors (BOG) fee waivers are executed immediately; as long as a student’s financial aid is in the system, all relevant payments will be made on time. In response to a question, Bricker informed senators that our new casheering system wil not allow a student to make a payment if there is not a corresponding charge on their record, so no early payments can be accepted from wait listed students. Payment plans will be available after semesters begin. When asked if Bricker herself makes these decisions, she replied that she does not—the District makes them. Senators noted that this system is problematic for students who travel over the summer and may not have access to e-mail, as well as for students with no internet access at home, to which Bricker replied that the District is looking into texting for notifying students, but this is not available yet. She additionally noted that her office has informed the District of these and other pitfalls, but this procedure is what the District has decided on. 
Much general concern was expressed in response to Bricker’s announcement that all materials fees for all students have been eliminated. Sezzi agreed to look into the matter of supplies bought with those fees. When asked about the idea that our district is the “customer” when buying a software package like Banner, Bricker replied that changes to registration system can be difficult for several reasons: all three colleges have to agree on a change, the software is not always able to accommodate what we want, and the software must remain compliant with laws, regulations, etc. Some changes we’d like to make are possible, some are very difficult. As we move away from multi-term registration, we’re probably moving to sending an e-mail that let’s students know they can now register, then giving them something like 48 hours to do so. It’s not perfect and still relies on them to check their email, but it will be better. Senators asked if registration could be moved to a time when students are actually in class, and Bricker replied that this had already been considered and rejected because of issues involving the completion of prerequisites and students knowing if they’d passed prerequisite courses. Sezzi proposed giving waitlisted students two weeks to register and 48 hours to pay. It was agreed by consent that this was a good idea, and the Senate will pursue that.

b.	Trustee Bernardo Perez attended the Senate and observed us in operation for about twenty minutes prior to this time certain of 2:45, but, unfortunately, due to a sudden illness he was unable to be present as a guest for question and answers from the Senate Council. He will be rescheduled his visit the Senate in the near future.

IV.	Approval of Minutes 
Muñoz motioned to approve minutes from 27 October Senate meeting, Parker seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

V.	Study Sessions
a.	Student success—Discussion ensued about the draft document from the state’s Student Success Task Force outlining student success, the VC faculty survey results on defining student success, and the Senators’ definitions from the Senate meeting of 1 September 2011. Sezzi commented that the Statewide Academic Senate fought hard to keep the state document from being performance-based, but some Senators commented that it seemed performance-based anyway. It was noted that when an ongoing, quantifiable improvement in student success is mandated, the only logical endpoint will be that every student will earn an “A” in every class—this does not serve students. Rather, while instructors should perpetually try to improve their instruction, each student’s success is largely up to the student. It was further noted that success for some students can be the realization that college is not for them—or not right for them right now. If and when such students are ready for college, we’ll be there for them. The comment was made that considering college not to be for everyone runs the risk of disinfranchising at-risk students, and we should serve everyone who wants to succeed. Muñoz noted that while this discussion is good, the train is moving: this state task force’s recommendations are in the works, they are bad, not transparent, and a lot of people are speaking out against it. The danger of attempting to quantify an unquantifyable thing like “student success” was discussed, and the fact that the results of doing so can be dangerous and misleading.

b.	Pros/Cons of the Efficacy and Use of Letters of Recommendation in Faculty Hiring—DCHR requested that Sezzi bring this matter to the Senate. He noted that letters of recommendation are currently optional for full-time and part-time facultyhiring. Because different hiring committees handle letters of recommendation differently, this raises concerns about equity in the process. There are problems associated both with mandating them and with eliminating them. What should be done to prevent candidates who do not supply optional letters to be scored or evaluated less favorably? Options were discussed: letters could be submitted in hard copy to diversity facilitators and shared only at the final interview stage, or letters could be requested as electronic forms as is done by nursing schools. Some Senators thought such letters were more valuable at the paper screening stage, while others thought they were more valuable at the final interview stage; similarly, some reported that letters are very important for hiring in their discipline, while others thought they were of little value. If we require letters, many people suggested that we provide criteria for what the writers should include without limiting content to that. It was decided by vote 7-4-0, that we suggest no letters of recommendation be submitted with full-time faculty applications.

c.	Fall 2011 Statewide Academic Senate Plenary Session Resolutions—Sezzi briefly described some of the more important resolutions that will be voted on this Saturday at the Fall Plenary session. Sezzi explained that it is his professional opinion that the two resolutions and the “Appendix C” regarding repeatability most likely will be divided up and voted on individually. Sezzi solicited comments for how he should vote on these at State Senate meeting. Muñoz noted that EOPS does not support the BOG waiver resolution. She further suggested, to general agreement, that Sezzi not support the Student Success Task Force and that he vote “yes” on the resolution to draft a response to the student success document. The Senate consented that Sezzi vote on the repeatability resolutions based on the input he received from the disciplines he contacted regarding the “Appendix C” document that would be significantly impacted by the repeatability regulations proposed therein. The Senate further agreed that Sezzi should vote in the best interests of the Senate as he best sees fit.

VI.	President’s Reports
a.	Board of Trustees Meeting—Nothing specific occurred to carry back to Senate. Barbara Beno, the President of the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, will be at next Board meeting to provide Board professional development training.

b.	Consultation Council Report—Chancellor Meznek again asked us to highlight current problems with District–campus communications, wanting more specific examples; Sezzi reminded the Chancellor that our Senate’s “Minority Report” response to the District’s accreditation report provides many specific examples of our poor communication processes. On behalf of  and with the tacit consent of the Senate, Sezzi offered to go through entire Participatory Government Hanbdook and recommend changes. The District (i.e. Meznek, Patricia Parham, and Sue Johnson) will be making presentations at each campus to provide details about cuts that will be made. Muñoz opined that faculty must go to these meetings to voice their objections. It was agreed that the Senate should have a study session on unfunded FTES at a future meeting.

c.	Admin Council—The main issue brought up at the last Admin Council were the registration issues Senators just discussed with Bricker. This week’s Admin Council was cancelled.

d.	DCSL, DTRW, DCAS, DCHR Reports— Sezzi noted that last month’s DCAS meeting was cancelled. DCHR discussed the Faculty Service Area (FSA) procedure (see below) and letters of recommendations on faculty hiring (see above). Sezzi and Pauley both remarked that last month’s DTRW reviewed a small amount of curriculum. At DCSL the AP on Program Discontinuance was discussed and the other two Senates explicitly liked have the enumerated list of program metrics. It appears unlikely that our Senate’s perspective on removing this list of metrics will be successful.

e.	Board Goals and Objectives Implementation Task Force (BGOITF) Report—Senators asked what this task force does and if Sezzi is involved in implementing goals and objectives of which the Senate disapproves. Sezzi and Pauley replied no, that the work of this task force is to help gather data and write reports to present before the Board. It was noted that there are three people from VC on this task force—Sezzi Pauley and Ramiro Sanchez.  

f.	Accreditation Meetings Report—Sezzi noted that the Accreditation Committee had a lot of praise for us, that they appeared satisfied with what we’ve done and with the change in campus culture. When asked about his refusal to sign the follow-up accreditation report, Sezzi elaborated in detail and the Committee seemed sympathetic. We will hear back from the Accreditation Commission on our college and district accreditation status in late January or early February.

VII.	Senate Subcommittee Reports
a.	Curriculum Committee Report—Deadlines for 5-year review of courses will be spread out over a 4-month period starting at the end of 2011. Each division will be given one of four deadlines. Two transfer model curricula have been approved, 8 or more are in progress now. 

b.	Other Committee Reports—Staffing Priorities subcommittee will meet tomorrow (4 November 2011). 

VIII.	Action Items
a.	AP 5055—Enrollment Priorities (Second Reading)—It was agreed by consensus to approve this document if CalWorks was removed from its current enrollment priority status.

b.	Resolution on Establishing Deadline for Documents that Ventura College Academic Senate President Signature (Second Reading)—This matter was approved by consensus.

c.	Faculty Service Area (FSA) request through equivalency process (First Reading)—Sezzi informed Senate that an FSA only comes into effect when there’s a reduction in force. The document was discussed: The first two pages are from Patricia Parham and a new version exists incorporating AFT input. The third page is a section of our contract that relates to FSAs (Section 5.7.b(2)). The fourth page contains Education Code section 87743.2 which stipulated that AFT “shall consult with the academic senate in developing its [FSA] proposals.” The fifth page contains the District’s current “Petition for FSA” form. The AFT is supposed to work with us to determine, according to Ed Code. AFT proposes that faculty “determine”—not “recommend”—equivalency for meeting minimum qualifications for the purposes of obtaining an FSA. It was agreed by acclimation that we agree with the language present in the contact and that the faculty should “determine”—not “recommend”—equivalency for meeting minimum qualifications for the purposes of obtaining an FSA—the faculty should have the final say in this situation.

IX.	Information Items
a.	VC Academic Senate Program Review Rubric (Adopted May 3, 2011) and AP 4021’s program discontinuance metrics —Sezzi provided the Senate with its previously adopted program review rubric. Sezzi also remarked that he shared this document with Calote, Sanchez, Keebler and Kathy Scott at a meeting earlier this week. Calote, et al, agreed with the metrics on rubric as presented but indicated that they did not agree with the scoring present on the rubric. Sezzi noted that he will bring any proposals from administration on the implementation of this or a revised version of this rubric back to the Senate at a future date.  Sezzi also noted at the meeting he had with Calote, et al, earlier this week, she agreed that future versions of the “planning parameters” that outline which programs are being considered by discontinuance by administration will indicate if the identified programs are being considered for program discontinuance based on pedagogical reasons (thus using a rubric, such as the one described above, etc.) or on fiscal reasons, or some combination thereof both pedagogical and fiscal reasons.

X.	Adjournment
This meeting adjourned at 3:37 p.m.