Ventura College Academic Senate
Minutes
22 March 2012         MCW-312

I.	Call to Order
This meeting was called to order at 1:34. The following senate members were present:
Algiers, Kammy—Math and Sciences
Arquilevich, Gabe—English and Learning Resources
Chen, Albert—Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities
Forde, Richard—Career & 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
Morris, Terry—PE/Athletics, Communication Studies, Foreign Languages and ESL
Muñoz, Paula—Student Services
Parker, Jennifer—Career and Technical Education
Pauley, Mark—Senate Treasurer
Sezzi, Peter—Senate President
The following guests were present:
Blum, Steve—Chair, VCCCD Board of Trustees
Chaparro, Tammi—Executive Director, ASVC
Lara-Cruz, Christopher—President, ASVC
Sanchez, Ramiro—EVP, Student Learning
Tovar, Antonio—Vice President, ASVC

II.	Public Comments
No public comments were made.

III.	Acknowledgement of Guests—Steve Blum, Chair, VCCCD Board of Trustees
Sezzi introduced and then publicly acknowledged Blum’s history of hard work on behalf of the District. Sezzi noted that while Blum may not always agree with what we may want, he is a man of high character and integrity who constantly strives to do what he believes is in the best interest of the District and its students.  Blum thanked faculty for all our dedication and efforts in these difficult times. Senators asked about the Board’s role in District centralization vs. decentralization. Blum replied that this issue is not up to the Board; the Board delegates this to the Chancellor and those beneath him/her. Blum noted that the Board hears many calls for less centralization and even occasional calls for more centralization. When asked how has the Board’s role changed over his time on it, Blum replied that the role of Board members is not clear, and not everyone agrees on what that role should be. The Board is a policy-making body and a citizens’ oversight group but Board members are not managers. Senators asked if there was anything faculty could do to increase communication and cooperation within the District, to which Blum replied no, not really. He did note that having a new Chancellor may help by setting a new tone in the District, however. Senators asked if the Board will re-address its goals to make them less specific and proscriptive. Blum replied yes, as is the custom, the Board will re-assess its goals at its annual planning meeting this June. He added that no matter what those goals are, many people will not like them and he noted that the Board was told that its previous set of goals were not specific enough. Senators next asked if it was not possible for board to ask of administration for budget cuts that are away from classrooms and students, to which Blum responded that the Board does not decide what is to be cut. That’s a managerial function, and that there is never a good place to cut. He opined that the villians in this matter are the “no new taxes” crowd in Sacramento, not VCCCD’s administration or the Board. Senators expressed the view that Blum will be able to communicate to our next Chancellor that part of his/her duty should be to heal the current dysfunction that exists between faculty and the District. Blum agreed, further noting that a Chancellor can’t engender trust by sitting in a building and hoping it will happen. Senators next asked if we need all the top-heavy management we have, noting that two highly paid Vice Chancellors—in additions to three college Presidents who are also at the Vice Chancellor level—seems excessive for the amount of work they have to do. Blum responded that to some constituents, all districts appear to have too many administrators if they have even one, and that VCCCD actually used to have three Vice Chancellors. In response to being asked what his criteria are for a good Chancellor, Blum reported that his criteria are all the same things one typically hears: a good communicator, a good collaborator, a good manager, community college experience, etc. He pointed out that these criteria have not always been the same at other districts—some districts have looked for aggressive or combative people in the past. Sezzi commented on how readily the Board agreed to and trusted the desired qualifications/criteria established by the Successor Chancellor Search Committee. When asked if there is probation period for a new Chancellor, Blum did not directly say yes or no, but he noted that “the rubber hits the road” in the background check—a candidate can interview well but may not actually be very good, and a lot of information can be gleaned from checking references. Blum asked what the Senators’ criteria were and a discussion ensued, ending with consensus that a focus on students should inform every decision and action taken. Senators next asked if state funding drops, how can money be raised so the campuses can continue functioning? Blum opined that a parcel tax is probably the only solution but that no community college has ever been successful in implementing that in bad financial times such as these. Finally, he noted that if the November proposition doesn’t pass, he estimated that VCCCD will more than likely have to cut another 6–8 million from its budget. 

IV.	Approval of minutes—1 March 2012
Arquilevich motioned to approve these minutes, Guillen seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

V.	Study Sessions
a.	Suggestions for Interview Questions for Successor Chancellor Hiring Committee
After some discussion questions were suggested: what is a Chancellor’s role in the community? What is the role of the district office in a multi-campus district? How can better communications between campuses be implemented? Are our colleges community colleges or junior colleges? Given that we’re on accreditation sanction, what would your first act as Chancellor be? Describe a typical day as Chancellor. Senators opined that the hiring committee should agree in advance on what constitutes a good vs. a bad answer to each question. Sezzi will take the suggestions to the search committee meeting on Monday. 

b.	Changing the Current Deadline for Withdrawing with a “W”
Sezzi: according to our registrar, most community colleges allow students to withdraw from classes between 60–75% of when semester is completed. Discussion on this topic ensued. Senators noted that many students don’t pay attention to how they’re doing in a class until the last minute before the withdraw deadline, and they opined that late withdrawing encourages students to take class less seriously. Upon discovering that they’re not doing well, those students would have more time to bring up their grade if the withdraw deadline were earlier. New financial aid limitations on repeatability make this a worse situation for students. Other Senators felt that grade-checks can help students know where they are, and later withdraw deadlines give students more flexibility. Some Senators felt that shortening the withdraw period would punish students; others noted that just as condensed courses often yield better grades because they force students to be on the ball from the start, shorter withdraw periods could do the same.  After much discussion, it was agreed to my most—but not all—Senators that we should recommend that the withdraw date me moved from its present time (75% of a class, or the end of the 14th week of a full-term class) to earlier in the semester (60% of a class, or the end of the 11th week of a full-term class). Sezzi will incorporate this change into AP 4255 and the Senators will take this back for constituent feedback. If this proposed change is acted upon at our next Senate meeting, Sezzi will take this change to the “W” timeline to DCSL in April.

c.	Ventura College Academic Senate Faculty Satisfaction Survey
This was discussed, and there was general agreement that another survey is OK. Questions pertaining to VC’s Mission Statement were removed because they’re currently being asked in the President’s survey on the college mission. Questions for survey discussed. Other questions discussed asked about VC’s current restructuring/changes to program review, SLOs, professional development, and distance education. 

d.	Ventura College Academic Senate Self-Assessment Survey
This was discussed, as was an alternate version intended for distribution to the entire faculty.

VI.	Action Items
a.	Resolution on Using Student Learning Outcomes or Institutional Effectiveness Metrics Only in the Aggregate and Not as Evaluative Measures on Individual Faculty Performance (First Reading) 
Arquilevich motioned to approve this document with minor wording changes to be made by Sezzi as and where needed, Forde seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Final wording will be voted on during a second reading at the next Senate meeting.

b.	AP 4100–Graduation Requirements for Degrees and Certificates (Second Reading)
Discussion ensued regarding students who receive certificates from our school based on classes they took at a different school. General, but not unanimous, consensus was reached that the problem was minor and rare enough that any solution to it would likely be worse than the problem itself. Lange motioned to approve the document, Gardner seconded. Motion carried 12–0–1 with Guillen abstaining.

c.	VC Institutional Effectiveness Metrics (First Reading)
Ford motioned to approve this document and move it to second reading, Arquilevich seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 

d.	AP 4255 – Course Repetition (First Reading)
Forde motioned to move this and the following three APs to second reading at the next Senate meeting, Haines seconded. Motion carried unnanimously.

e.	AP 4227 – Course Repetition Absent Substandard Academic Work (First Reading)
See (VI. d), above.

f.	AP 4230 – Grading and Academic Records Symbols (First Reading)
See (VI. d), above.

g.	AP 5013 – Students in the Military (First Reading)
See (VI. d), above.

VII.	President’s Report
a.	DCAP report
In the interest of time, Sezzi gave a combined, integrated report on all topics listed here, and told Senators that more information on all of it would be presented at the next Senate meeting. A lot of work is being done by this group at DCAP, Consultation Council, and Board meetings. In his considered opinion, the work that is being (finally!) done on District accreditation efforts is a huge relief. Interactions between Senate Presidents and Board/Chancellor have become significantly better in the last month. Robin Calote leads DCAP with much, much work being done, and many ideas are being freely and effectively shared. Genuine change appears to be happening. District-wide planning is probably the remaining thing that requires the most work. DCAP in its current form only exists until the end of the year, then re-evaluation and establish relationship with new Chancellor.

b.	Consultation Council reports
See (VII. a), above.

c.	Board of Trustees meeting report
See (VII. a), above.

d.	DTRW, DCSL, DCHR reports
See (VII. a), above.

e.	BGOITF report
See (VII. a), above.

f.	Administrative Council report
See (VII. a), above.

VIII.	Senate Subcommittee and Campus Committee reports
a.	Curriculum Committee report
These reports were not made in the interest of time.

b.	Professional Development Committee report
See (VIII. a), above.

c.	One Book, One Campus Committee report
Sezzi mentioned that a survey to choose the next One Book selection is currently available with hard copies of all the proposed titles in the college library.

d.	Other Committees
See (VIII. a), above.

IX.	Information Items
No information items were discussed.

X.	Adjournment
This meeting adjourned at 3:38 p.m.