Ventura College Academic Senate
Minutes     Thursday, 20 October 2011     MCW 312

I.	Call to Order
The 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
Chen, Albert—Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities
Fiumerodo, Gigi—Math and Sciences
Forde, Richard—Career and Technical Education
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
Morris, Terry—PE/Athletics, Communication Studies, Foreign Languages and ESL
Muñoz, Paula—Student Services
Parker, Jennifer—Career and Technical Education
Sezzi, Peter—Senate President
The following guests were present:
Arevalo, Gloria—Articulation Officer
Bowen, Michael – Math and Sciences
Chavez, Daniel—ASVC
Fernandez, Ralph—Career and Technical Education
Harrison, Karen—ESL
Kumpf, Dan—Math and Sciences
McKay, Dianne—VCCCD Trustee
Sanchez, Ramiro—EVP, Student Learning
Tovar, Antonio—Vice President, ASVC

II.	Public Comments
No public comments were made.

III.	Acknowledgement of Guest: Trustee Diane McKay
In response to being asked what the Board of Trustees means about common course numbering (CCN), McKay responded that sections and/or programs being cut means that more students will be moving between the three campuses, and CCN will facilitate that by making it easier for students to do so. McKay emphasized that the goal is not to duplicate classes, course outlines, or programs, just to change what the classes are called. When asked to what should that CCN apply—local degree completion? transfer to another school?, etc. McKay responded that this is not her area of expertise; the goal is just to determine what will best serve students. Articulation issues will be difficult but CCN should apply within our district she stated. She was asked how she would advise us to deal with inevitable difficulties arising from a situation in which different courses with the same name at the three campus would articulate differently at different transfer schools. She responded that CCN does not imply they’re the same, just that they have commonality. She noted that she in her perspective, she wants commonality but that she expects the faculty to tell us what makes sense. She noted that the Board members are not the experts but that we the faculty are. Comments were made that what faculty members think CCN is appears to be different than what McKay thinks it is. McKay responded that the Trustees just want better access and a common way for students to navigate their way around the system. Clarity about what we want to achieve might make CCN work this time. When asked if “common” units and “common” learning outcomes mean comparable, as she described here, or actually the same, McKay responded that our campuses should have commonality and be generally comparable to other schools. She noted that the Board  doesn’t want to be proscriptive, though; the Board doesn’t want to tell faculty how to teach but rather just wants to take a guiding role—the specifics are up to you. 

Trustee McKay then mentioned the Ventura College five-unit (5) English composition class is a big issue, given that the English composition course is four (4) units at other campuses and transfers at three (3) units—is that fair to students? She asked why are we doing that? Trustee McKay went on to say that perhaps these extra two (2) units should be stand-alone so students know what they’re taking and why. She went on to say that she felt that these criteria should apply to all subjects, not just math, science, and English. Trustee McKay mentioned that the Board is primarily focused on the goal of improving access and that they are hoping the minutia of how to do it comes from us, the faculty. Muñoz requested confirmation that these are goals, not mandates; Trustee McKay responded yes. Trustee McKay expressed a sincere hope that we make progress on these goals and objectives but this is a conversation that the Board hopes to happen with faculty, not something that they intend to force upon faculty. Senators asked if the five-unit (5) English matter applies to transfer-level English composition only, or to five-unit (5) developmental English, too. Trustee McKay remarked that she is not necessarily speaking for all Trustees but that she felt that the Board did not vet this issue to that level of detail. Sezzi inquired if not Board objective 1.C. dealt with the uniformity of unit valuation of non-transfer level math, English and science courses. Trustee McKay’s personal belief is that college courses belong in college, non-college courses don’t but she admitted that she knows that things are not quite so simple. It was noted that literature courses have been taken away, all we teach now is composition. Faculty should at least be allowed to decide issues of unit numbers. Some concern was expressed about who should decide the appropriateness of the unit valuation of our courses, if not us, who are the discipline experts and professionals? Trustee McKay’s response was that the Board does not decide this. To the degree that a decision affects student access, we’re interested. She noted that the intent of the Board is to want to serve as many students as efficiently as possible. The details of how that works academically is beyond her expertise. 

When asked if the Board is defining what access means, Trustee McKay answered no. It was noted that about 60–70% of our students are basic skills students—below standards for transfer to other schools. They’re getting accepted, but they’re unable to get into college-ready courses. Trustee McKay replied that we are a college, not a high school. She stated that our mandate is not to revisit high school. In times of limited resources, we need to direct the resources that remain to college courses. When asked about students who are college-ready only in math, Trustee McKay responded by asking if it is our mission to get them ready at any cost, or are there limitations to that? If it is our mission, will it be at the expense of college courses? How far down below college level should be go? She noted that the current Board goals and objectives note that two levels below is reasonable. When asked for recommendation about what to do with basic skills students and should we simply kick them out, Trustee McKay responded by asking if it’s better to kick a basic skills student out or a prepared, hard-working student out. Senators responded by noting that the number of prepared, hard-working students is relatively low, while the number of basic skill students is relatively high. Trustee McKay responded that she did not know where all the students should go but as we are a college with limited resources, we should serve college students. Muñoz noted that the California Master Plan for Higher Education has not changed, and our not serving all those basic skills students becomes a serious access issue. She additionally asked if the Board is looking for cost savings from other areas that could be directed to student support, noting that this is also a Board objective. Trustee McKay responded that the Board is looking at everything, leaving no stone unturned, and that difficult cuts will need to be made. Muñoz and noted that cuts are always proposed to classes, never to anything else. Sezzi noted that it is difficult for faculty to take the Board’s stated goal of “access and student success” seriously when the first announced cost savings to bridge a potential budget crisis are cuts to classes, not administration or from other areas. Trustee McKay responded that putting out a list of district cuts would be premature because we have not looked at costs that could be cut there. Trustee McKay responded that the Board does not need a policy for cutting costs from administration; they know how to do that. Senators commented that the Board is closing doors to students and that it’s unfair to try to send problem to other school districts that don’t have adult education programs. 

Discussion then centered on math and reading preparation in local high schools. It was noted that it is dangerous to compare equivalencies (math/reading) between high school and college. High school state requirements are different than ours, their curriculum focuses more on reading and grammar, not composition. Senators noted that community colleges then bridge the gap between what is not functioning at high schools and what transfer colleges need. We are the one who do that. Trustee McKay agreed, saying that it is dangerous and sad to cut basic skills courses. Se said that the Board looks at its Mission, which is primarily to serve transfer and CTE students. She further noted that it is her job as an elected official to stay within that stated mission statement. Trustee McKay noted that if the Board feels that its Mission Statement no longer serves us, we should re-address the Mission Statement. However, she noted that disagreeing with the Mission does not change what the Mission is, though. She further noted that she does not relish doing this as she has worked for this issue throughout most of her professional life. She noted in closing that she is a Trustee with a Mission Statement, though, and we have to serve as many students within that Mission as possible. 

A comment was made that if consolidation and cost savings is a goal, maybe District Office should be brought back to Day Road. She was asked if the Board has board looked at this. Trustee McKay noted that the Board will look at everything. She then asked the Senate if it would it be OK if the District Office were at Moorpark or Oxnard instead of VC? Senators responded with an enthusiastic Yes! Trustee McKay concluded by stating that the Board has its goals and measuring sticks but reminded us that these are not mandates. She further noted that she was the one who injected measurement criteria into this version of the Board Objectives. There is no way that I would look only at cutting classes and student access as a way of cutting costs overall and staying within budget. She noted as her final comment that she is happy to come back if and when the Senate would invite her back. 

IV.	Approval of minutes
Guillen moved to approve minutes from 6 October and 11 October meetings, Lange seconded, motion carried unanimously. 

Arquilevich motioned to move all action items up to this point in the agenda in the interest of time. Parker seconded, motion carried unanimously. [See below, in normally scheduled spots, for minutes of the discussion and actions on these individual items.]

V.	Study Sessions
a.	Student Success
Documents pertaining to this topic were distributed. Sezzi noted that a Statewide task force was convened on this matter, he will email that body’s list of recommendations to Senators. Further discussion postponed to a future Senate meeting due to lack of time.

b.	Pros/Cons of the Efficacy and Use of Letters of Recommendations in Faculty Hiring 
Sezzi requested Senators to consider this matter, which is currently being discussed at DCHR and that we will discuss this at a future Senate meeting.

VI.	President’s Report
a.	Board of Trustees Meeting report
b.	Administrative Council report
c.	DCSL, DTRW and DCAS reports
d.	District Goals and Objectives Implementation Task Force report
All of these matters were postponed to a future Senate meeting due to lack of time.

VII.	Treasurer’s Report
a.	Budget and Resource Council
This matter was postponed to a future Senate meeting due to lack of time. 

VIII.	Senate Subcommittee reports
a.	Curriculum Committee report
b.	Learning Communities Committee report
c.	Staffing Priorities Committee report
d.	Other Committees
All of these matters were postponed to a future Senate meeting due to lack of time. 

IX.	Action Items
a.	AP 4021—Program Discontinuance (Third Reading)
Sezzi reported that he fought vigorously for this Senate’s recommendations on this document but he was out-voted. The long list of criteria for discontinuance was actually approved by other campuses Senates—they’re facing more cuts and of viable programs and they feel that this list can protect them against spurious discontinuance. Muñoz noted that Item “E” says we can’t have duplicate programs in our district.; this could easily be used to get rid of otherwise viable programs. Sezzi agreed but noted that since this version of the document will go forward, VC must now make our own protocol for what elements from this list we’ll use. We can fall back on this list as a defense. Fortunately, part of 10+1 is a requirement of a processes for discontinuance—that gives us an incredible amount of say. Sezzi further noted that we’ve already developed a program discontinuance rubric, and we should revisit and use it. Sezzi reminded the Council that this AP allows each college to develop its own program discontinuance metrics and we should shortly begin this conversation with our administration. Senators commented that we must be and remain vigilant to be sure that the sentence in the document describing the list as examples of criteria that may or may not be used never goes away—it’s our only saving grace! Minor changes were suggested to this document: a final bullet point on the list that says “and anything else,” and a title for the list that explicitly identifies it as “potential” criteria. Muñoz voiced her official opposition to this document. Gardner made a conditional motion to approve with above-described changes, Ford seconded. Motion carried 11-3-0, with Haines, Lange, and Muñoz voting no. 

b.	AP 5055—Enrollment Priorities (First Reading)
Discussion centered on simplifying, eliminating particular categories, combining particular categories to streamline this procedure overall. Use of units attempted rather than units completed met with general disapproval, while exclusion of units from returning students’ prior coursework (>5 years old), and exclusion of basic skills units from counts met with general approval. A challenge procedure for high-unit students was discussed, particularly from high-unit/multiple prerequisite majors like Nursing. It was further noted that delays for Nursing students getting into classes mean delays in those students’ attempts (and therefore successes) at passing board exams. Including Nursing, engineering, radiology, dental hygiene, and others in with athletes for priority registration was discussed, as was adding “declared/counselor-verified high-unit majors” with a short list of examples. Small changes to the unit counts for each category were discussed, as was giving lowest priority to all high school students (some considered this appropriate in times of budget cuts). Haines motioned to advance this to second reading, Forde seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

c.	Resolution on Establishing Deadline for Documents that Ventura College Academic Senate President Signature (First Reading)
This resolution establishes a local guideline for how much advance notice our Senate President should be given before being expected to sign any document that requires his official signature in his capacity as Academic Senate President. The goal is to prevent our Senate President from being expected to approve documents before they’ve had a chance to read them. Muñoz motioned to advance this to second reading, Algiers seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

X.	Information Item—Fall 2011 Statewide Academic Senate Plenary Session Resolutions
This matter was postponed to a future Senate meeting due to lack of time.

XI.	Adjournment
Agenda items not covered were moved to next Senate meeting. This meeting adjourned at 3:34 p.m.