Ventura College Academic Senate
Minutes
Thursday, 6 December 2012       MCW-312

I.	Call to Order
This meeting was called to order 1:37. The following senate members were present:
Chen, Albert—Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities
Enfield, Amanda—English and Learning Resources
Guillen, Guadalupe—Student Services
Haines, Robbie—Senate Secretary
Horigan, Andrea—Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities
Kim, Henny—English and Learning Resources
Lange, Cari—Senate Vice President
Mitchell, Nancy—Career and Technical Education
Muñoz, Paula—Student Services 
Parker, Jennifer—Career and Technical Education
Pauley, Mark—Senate Treasurer
Rose, Malia—Mathematics and Sciences
Sandford, Art—PE/Athletics, Communication Studies, Foreign Languages, and ESL
Sezzi, Peter—Senate President
The following guests were present:
Bricker, Susan—Registrar
Hull, Becky—Student Services, past Academic Senate President
Johnson, Sue—Vice Chancellor of Business Services
Rodriguez, Alma—Financial Aid & Distance Education

II.	Public Comments
No public comments were made.

III.	Acknowledgement of Guests
a.	 Susan Bricker and Alma Rodriguez—Registration Procedures, Financial Aid, & Distance Education
Bricker informed senators that because leaving non-attending students on rosters allows them to commit financial aid fraud, it has become extremely important to drop no-show students. Title V criteria for census was distributed out as a handout. Bricker explained (unchanged) registration practices for Spring 2013, and she described registration- and alleged fraud-related problems at different California community colleges. Distance education is the easiest way for students to commit fraud; Bricker described how students register for distance ed classes, then stop attending after they receive Pell grant and other funds. In response to a question about dropping students after census, Bricker reported that this is optional—they may be dropped by the instructor or the matter may be left in the hands of the students. Rodriguez noted that, although people assume that dealing with financial aid-related fraud is the job of the Financial Aid Department, that department cannot handle the problem without help from faculty. The Financial Aid Department has to assume that students are participating in a class unless faculty report that they are not. She described patterns associated with fraud rings that allow the Financial Aid Department to catch occasional perpetrators but she noted that they are obligated to continue dispersing funds until they are informed that the students are no longer registered. It was noted that students owe no money if they complete 60% of the term, but they can withdraw up to 75% of the course. Rodriguez informed senators that the school, not the student, is liable for any money that the government demands back. She also noted that money owed by the District used to be paid by District, but they recently changed this procedure and are now requiring such money to be paid by individual campuses. This means that campuses need to hold a sum of money in reserve, which is money that could be used to fund a faculty position, for example. A discussion ensued about disseminating this information to adjunct faculty who don’t read their emails, and Rodriguez mentioned the potential for a Board Policy focusing on this in the near future. Bricker and Rodriguez agreed to develop a simple and succinct handout to be distributed next semester. The new increased importance of submitting grades on time was briefly discussed. Students can be placed on academic probation through no fault of their own if instructors don’t submit grades on time. 

b.	Sue Johnson, Vice Chancellor of Business Services
Johnson distributed several handouts containing information on the FY13 District Office (DO) budget allocation and DO budget data, a DO organizational chart, proportional expenses, and a chart comparing funding and services in our district to those of other multi-college districts. Johnson spoke in support of the DO’s request to increase their percent of overall revenue to 7.14%, an increase of about $600,000 or 0.5%. She opined that alternatives to this increase are to have some administrative tasks remain unaccomplished, or to shift the responsibility for accomplishing those tasks to the colleges without financial support for them to get done. When asked what specific tasks would not get done, Johnson responded that specific tasks are not broken down in a way that allows for an easy answer to that question. She noted that the DO, like the campuses, is not told precisely how to spend its money; rather, it is simply given a sum and expected to spend it however it sees fit in order to fulfill its responsibilities. She gave specific examples of functions being understaffed, areas where cuts have been made, difficulties with new pension requirements, and low staff numbers at the District IT department. When asked how the $600,000 figure was derived, Johnson replied that it is a maximum amount, not a fixed amount, and that less might actually end up being spent. A discussion ensued about the top-heavy administrative structure at the DO, the financial cost of having multiple managers for managers, and the tendency for workloads to expand to fill or exceed the capacity of available resources. Johnson responded by noting that she’s aware of these concerns, and she described re-organization efforts at the DO that have allowed them to cut entire positions rather than small percentages of multiple positions. She additionally noted that the DO takes up all the slack with work that must be done. 

Before departing, Johnson thanked senators for their consideration, and senators thanked Johnson for her openness and cooperation. Additional discussion ensued after Johnson’s departure. It was unanimously agreed that the DO has enough funds and that they need to restructure so that they have more technicians and fewer managers. It was additionally noted that Proposition 30 passed because the public wants more money for classrooms, not for administrators.

In response to questions about what will happen next, Sezzi reported that to a change to the allocation model, not a particular dollar amount, is either approved or not. DCAS comes to a decision on the matter, then the Board Budget Subcommittee decides, then that Subcommittee and the Academic Senates send our recommendation to the Board of Trustees for the Board’s final decision. It was opined that the new Board is very unlikely to approve this change to the allocation model. 

IV.	Approval of Minutes, 15 November 2012
Horigan motioned to approve these minutes, Forde seconded. The motion carried 12–0–1 with Sandford abstaining.

V.	Study Sessions
a.	Registration, Financial Aid, & Distance Education
See Section III.a., above.

b.	District Office Funding 
See Section III.b., above.

VI.	Action Items
a.	Faculty Prioritization Report by Staffing Priorities Committee (SPC)
Hull presented SPC’s rankings and rationales from the SPC meeting of 30 November 2012. She explained the process—including the circumstance this year that staffing requests included retirement replacements, which were not ranked because VC President Calote had already committed to replacing them—and she enumerated the results. Sandford motioned to approve the results, Guillen seconded. After a brief discussion, Sezzi noted that since presentations were made only on high-priority-ranked faculty, this process confirmed the validity of the Program Review process. The motion carried unanimously. 

b.	VC Mission Statement (First Reading)
Sandford motioned to move this to second reading, Guillen seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

c.	Distance Education Handbook (Second Reading)
This topic was tabled until financial aid matters discussed above can be incorporated into it.

d.	Discontinuance of International Students, Commercial Art, and Drafting: Electronic Design Programs (Second Readings)
Pauley motioned to approve, Sandford seconded. The motion carried 12–1–0, with Muñoz opposed. 

VII.	President’s Report
a.	Consultation Council Report
Sezzi reported that the Chancellor was not present at the last Consultation Council meeting.

b.	Administrative Council Report
This body did not meet.

c.	DCAA, DCAS, DCHR Reports
DCAA: Sezzi discussed that DCAA reviewed the MC, OC and VC curriculum and has forwarded it to the Board for approval.  DCAS: Sezzi reported that this body will say no to the DO’s requested change to the allocation model. DCHR: Logistics of changes to APs for hirings (f/t & p/t faculty, vice-chancellors, chancellor, president, managers) were discussed.

VIII.	Senate Subcommittee reports
a.	Sabbatical Leaves Committee Report
Sezzi read the list of sabbaticals recommended by the local Sabbatical Leaves Committee and confirmed by the District Sabbatical Leaves Committee, which has forwarded these to the Board for action. The final decision now rests with the Board of Trustees.

b.	Staffing Priorities Committee Report
See Section VI.a., above.

c.	Curriculum Committee Report
Pauley reported that C-IDs will now be required for articulation. CORs should be updated to contain wording of state-wide C-IDs.

d.	Other Senate Committees
Nothing significant was reported.

IX.	Campus Committee Reports
a.	CPC report
Nothing significant was reported.

b.	Other Campus Committees
Nothing significant was reported.

X.	Adjournment
This meeting adjourned at 3:23 p.m.