Ventura College Academic Senate
Minutes
Thursday, 1 December 2011     MCW-312

I.	Call to Order
This meeting was called to order 1:33. The following senate members were present:
Algiers, Kammy—Math and Sciences
Beynon, Sharon—English and Learning Resources
Chen, Albert—Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities
Forde, Richard—Career and Technical Education
Fiumerodo, Gigi—Math and Sciences
Gardner, Ty—Math and Sciences
Guillen, Guadalupe—Student Services
Haines, Robbie—Senate Secretary
Hendricks, Bill—Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities
Lange, Cari—Senate Vice President
Mitchell, Nancy— Career and Technical Education
Muñoz, Paula—Student Services
Parker, Jennifer—Career and Technical Education
Sezzi, Peter—Senate President
The following guests were present:
Fernandez, Ralph—Career and Technical Education
Harvey, Dennis—CalWorks
Hernandez, Art— VCCCD Trustee
Palafox, John—Career, Technical and Community Education
Sanchez, Ramiro—EVP, Student Learning
Tovar, Antonio—Vice President, ASVC

II.	Public Comments
No public comments were made. 

III.	Acknowledgement of Guests
a.	Art Hernandez, VCCCD Trustee 
Trustee Hernandez expressed interest in working cooperatively with the campuses and hope that issues only come to Board after input and cooperation with all relevant parties. He said he welcomes discussion on any important matter, and he wants to represent and doesn’t want to alienate. 

Hernandez next solicited questions. Muñoz thanked him for voting against Board objectives and for opposing cuts. Hernandez responded by expressing caution about attempts to make things the same across all three campuses, voting on matters before there’s sufficient information to do so. He opined that Board Objectives document is a living document and should be part of ongoing discussion among the three campuses. Senators asked what would make him feel satisfied that matters presented to the Board were the result of such a group effort, particularly in light of numerous recent District actions taken without consultation of Board or campuses? What should the process be for large changes? Hernandez replied that communication should be built around the Board’s need to know what’s going on and the District’s need to be in control. While there are flaws in this system, he noted that it’s still a worth discussing and there’s still room for communication within these parameters. Given that the campuses have different personalities and given the difficult times we’re currently in, senators asked what the process should be for people at VC to declare to the Board what kind of school we want to be? Hernandez answered that community needs must dictate that, and the Board must always stay in touch with that. It might be a good idea to create a Vision for the next 5, 10, 20 years to examine where we see ourselves going over time, comparable to OC’s 20/20 plan. We need to put them together as a single (District?) document. For example, cutting a program that isn’t working properly may not be the best option if that program is needed; maybe it could be fixed instead? Are we hanging on to things that are working well but are no longer needed? Senators noted that many such matters could be cleared up by applying the simple criterion, “Is this good for students?” Are Board members asking that? The nonsensical cut of Architecture is a good example—is it good for students to cut that? Hernandez replied that this strategy is good because it would ensure that we’re all using the same criterion, but it can be hard to determine and quantify. A difficulty the Board faces is that by the time a matter comes to Board, the Board’s options are just yes or no. In response to Sezzi asking if he would you prefer a choice of opitons A, B, or C instead of a simple up or down vote, Hernandez said sometimes, but not always. By the time a matter makes it to our agenda, he said, an option is recommended and it can be more difficult to vote against a recommendation—trust and expertise issues arise in that situation. 

Given that Chancellor Meznek will be retiring in June 2012, Sezzi asked for Hernandez’s opinion on whether the Board should hire a consulting firm or use the District’s HR team to perform a search for a replacement. Hernandez said that he did not want to speculate. The Board tried to save money in past by doing a comparable search ourselves, but you get what you pay for. It’s more important to get good candidates than to save the amount of money a consultant would cost. VCCCD is great, and we can attract good candidates. Senators asked if the Board will discuss and decide what kind of chancellor we want? Hernandez replied that they would not do so yet, the upcoming meeting will just be about how to perform a search. We want to include faculty when determining the traits we want in a new chancellor, however. A comment made that it’s difficult to predict who you’ll get, and there is a history of paying a lot of money for a consultant-led search that did not yield a good candidate. Discussion ensued about search process. It was asked if Senate Presidents can participate in initial screening with a potential consultant, to ensure our goals and search criteria are the same? Hernandez replied that, just speaking for himself, we should see all applicants and we should not rely on a consultant to weed any out for us. Muñoz asked it the chancellor search will be carried out in light of a centralized or decentralized District? Hernandez responded that he was aware of this issue, aware of dangers of centralization. Sezzi asked why the three colleges, rather than the District office, should pay for consultant Gaither Lowenstein, and Sezzi strongly suggested that if any search consultant is hired that the funds for said consultant should come from the District budget. Hernandez replied that, while we all ultimately end up paying for such things, it’s not fair that campuses pay for district consultants. 

Sezzi noted that Hernandez was quoted in the paper as thinking that current cuts are disproportionately from OC, then asked if this means that VC and MC should shoulder more of the cuts. Hernandez responded that the community is attached to OC and he feels some accountability to that campus. He said he was sure to state in that quote, however, that he does not support more cuts from other campuses. He’s concerned with cuts being proportional, that we’ve examined all possible choices. He said he’s not less concerned about other campuses, he just wants to be sure he has all possible information before important decisions are made. 

He said he’s always interested in different opinions and perspectives, always appreciates contact. He closed by noting that he’s taking the weighty decisions ahead very seriously and that he appreciates the faculty’s hard work and expertise.

b.	David Keebler, VC Vice President of Business Services
Due to his meeting at the District Office running long, David Keebler was unable to attend this meeting. He will be rescheduled to attend a future Senate meeting.

IV.	Approval of minutes
a.	17 November 2011 
Gardner motioned to approve the minutes from the 17 November 2011 meeting, Forde seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

b.	Extension of remarks
Comments made by Trustee Dianne McKay at the 20 October 2011 meeting, but not captured in the minutes, were requested to be added to those minutes. Senators read these remarks. Lange motioned to approve them and Hendricks seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

V.	Action Items
a.	AP 5055—Enrollment Priorities [Revised] (Third Reading)
Sezzi noted that if this draft is approved soon, this can go into effect for Summer and Fall 2012 registration periods. Senators representing Counseling wanted more time to discuss with their Division the workload associated with the verification of high-unit majors. Harvey spoke in favor of continuing to grant CalWorks students priority enrollment. Although about half of CalWorks (about 75 out of 150) students already enjoy priority enrollment for some other reason (e.g. veteran or EOPS status, etc), Harvey opined that the few remaining students are “a few too many” and still deserve priority enrollment. Senators asked if it suits CalWorks to have their students grouped into Group 2 of the Priority enrollment document, since Group 1 is reserved for those who are legally mandated to be there. It was agreed that we would consult with Registrar Susan Bricker about legality of including CalWorks students in Group 1, and it was noted that we may have been doing so illegally. If it’s permissible, Senators agreed with keeping those students in Group 1; if not, it was agreed that they should be moved to Group 2. Harvey thanked the Senate for its support of CalWorks students. This matter may be carried over to third reading in January. 

b.	Ventura College Resolution on Defining Student Success (Second Reading)
After a brief discussion, Gardner motioned to approve this resolution with potential minor wording changes and Muñoz seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 

c.	Ventura College Resolution on Dropping Students for Non-Payment when Moved from a Wait List into a Class (Second Reading)
Guillen motioned to approve this resolution and Hendricks seconded. After a brief discussion about the applicability of registering in April for the Fall semester, the motion carried unanimously.

d.	Report on Ventura College Faculty Service on Committees (Second Reading)
Haines motioned to approve this document, Hendricks seconded. Discussion ensued about what to do with this report once approved. A majority of senators voted to post the report, with faculty names listed alphabetically, on the VC Academic Senate website. Motion to approve and post as described above carried unanimously. 

VI.	President’s Report
a.	Administrative Council report
Sezzi reported that this body was still discussing multi-term registration; no decision had been made yet. In response to senators asking about student support if staff moves to 11-month calendar, Sezzi reported that the matter had been discussed, but no decision had been made yet. 

b.	Department Chair’s & Coordinator’s Council report
Sezzi noted that the only thing to report that the senate hadn’t already discussed was that we might have to add back some FTES before the end of this year. We originally had planned to cut 800 FTES this fiscal year – and were making progress on this number even if the other campuses in our district were not being a successful this year in reducing their unfunded FTES as they had said that they would be – but now we may only need to end up cutting 600 FTES. If we were to process with cutting 800 FTES this fiscal year it would have cost the school a lot of money in the next year’s allocation model as other colleges in the District were not hitting their targets.

VII.	Senate Subcommittee reports
a.	Curriculum Committee report
Sezzi reported that more transfer model degrees are coming through pipeline. If any instructor wants to do one of those, the deadline to submit in order to have a transfer model degree present for next Fall semester is 6 January 2012. 

b.	One Book, One Campus Committee report
Sezzi requested that instructors let Deborah Pollack know if they used any portion of Outliers in any way in their courses this semester.

c.	Other Committees
No other reports are made. 

VIII.	Information Items
It was noted that Chancellor Meznek will be retiring after the Spring 2012 semester. The Board will discuss at their next meeting whether or not to hire consultant to perform or assist with a search for a new Chancellor. Discussion ensued about the appropriateness of hiring a consultant for this purpose; general consensus was reached that, if it’s standard procedure to hire a consultant for this purpose, then it is appropriate. 

It was additionally noted that Gaither Loewenstein’s consultant’s report to the Chancellor will be given on Thursday, 8 December. A special Senate meeting may be scheduled if there are controversial elements to that report.

IX.	Adjournment
This meeting adjourned at 3:08 pm.