Ventura College Academic Senate
Minutes
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Campus Center Conference Room

I.	Call to Order
This meeting was called to order at 1:33 p.m. The following senate members were present:

Algiers, Kammy – Math & Sciences
Arquilevich, Gabriel – Communication & Learning Resources
Aubry, Michael – Career & Technical Education
Corbett, P. Scott – Social Sciences & Humanities 
Guillen, Guadalupe – Student Services
Hendricks, Bill - Social Sciences & Humanities
Lall, Sumita - Communication & Learning Resources
Lange, Cari – Senate Secretary
Morris, Terry – Health, Physical Education & Athletics
Munoz, Paula – Student Services
Pollack, Deborah - Senate Vice-president
Sezzi, Peter – Senate President

The following guests were present:
Fiumerodo, Gigi – Faculty Professional Development Committee 

II.	Approval of minutes
a.	Motion to approve last meeting’s minutes was made by Guillen, and seconded by Pollack. Motion was approved 8-0-1 with Morris abstaining.  Arquilevich and Munoz were not present for this vote. 

III.	Action Items
a.	Resolution on Faculty Professional Development Funds (Second Reading)
	Motion to approve the resolution regarding pooling of Faculty Professional Development funds was made by Corbett and seconded by Hendricks. Motion unanimously passed. Arquilevich and Munoz were not present for voting.

b.	New DRAFT of AP 4021 – Program Discontinuance (Second Reading)
	As DCSL completely disregarded the Academic Procedure 4021 approved by the Academic Senate on Oct. 1, 2009 and drafted a new program discontinuance procedure which excludes faculty involvement to some extent in this process, Corbett motioned that the Academic Senate disapproves the new draft of AP 4021. Algiers seconded.  Motion carried 8-0-1 with Hendricks abstaining and Arquilevich and Munoz not present for the vote. 

c.	New DRAFT of AP 4100 – Graduation Requirements for Degrees & Certifications (Second Reading)
	This draft reflects a rewording clean up effort to more accurately align AP 4100 with our current catalogue description, current practices, and Title V policies. The most substantial changes were made to the guidelines for additional degrees, where the language was altered to more generally apply to multiple degrees.  
	Motion to approve this Academic Procedure was made by Hendricks and seconded by Corbett. The motion was unanimously approved. Arquilevich and Munoz were not present for this vote.

d.	Resolution on the Importance of Value of Sabbaticals (First Reading) 
	In response to the Chancellor’s recent remarks to the board that sabbatical leave is undesirable during these tight economic times and it is not of benefit to the district to have faculty on sabbatical, the Academic Senate Executive board drafted the following resolution:
	Whereas, the Academic Senate recognizes and values the importance of sabbaticals and the benefit that they bring to the District, students and fellow faculty, and;
Whereas, the Academic Senate acknowledges the dedication, professionalism and work ethic of faculty members who take sabbaticals, and;
Whereas, the Academic Senate endorses the Ventura College published goal of “continuously improve[ing] educational programs and services to meet student, community, and workforce development needs,” as stated in the Ventura College Educational Master Plan, and sabbaticals are a way in which this goal of faculty enrichment is met, and;

Whereas, the Academic Senate values the work that faculty on sabbaticals bring back to the institution in the way of new curriculum and programs created, new teaching methodologies and pedagogies learned and explored, individual continued academic development brought to the individual instructor, and honor brought to the institution by individual scholarly research and publication, and;
Whereas, the Academic Senate gratefully thanks the hard work, scrutiny and careful review performed by the Ventura College Sabbatical Leaves and District Sabbatical Leaves Committees in evaluating and ranking the sabbatical proposals using contract section 8.6M of their fellow faculty, and;
Whereas, the Academic Senate strongly agrees that faculty should be held accountable for the work performed during a sabbatical and we look forward to further showcasing the productive works achieved by faculty during their sabbaticals during future meetings of the Faculty Professional Development Committee and the Academic Senate, amongst other places, and;
Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Academic Senate considers any changes made to the contact concerning sabbaticals as detrimental to the academic integrity of the institution, the faculty, the community and the District but most importantly, any changes would be to the detriment of our students.
	Senate members were asked to discuss this proposal with their respective departments, as it will be an action item for approval at the next senate meeting to be held Feb. 18, 2010.

e.	Resolution on Having Faculty Present During Presidential Interviews (First Reading) 
	In response to recent campus practice of not having any faculty consistently present in Presidential level interviews, and; whereas there are currently no guidelines for this and individuals present at the Presidential level interviews are determined on a case by case scenario by each campus’ president, the Academic Senate Executive board drafted the following resolution:

Whereas, the Academic Senate acknowledges the paramount importance of including faculty during the hiring of faculty colleagues, and;
Whereas, the Academic Senate notes that AP XXXX allows for the President of the College to determine who is present during the final presidential interview for faculty hires, and;
Whereas, the Academic Senate recognizes that prior to last year, faculty co-chairs of faculty hiring committees were invited and included during the presidential interview, and;
Whereas, the Academic Senate applauds the professionalism of all faculty involved in the hiring of colleagues, and;
Whereas, the Academic Senate strongly feels that faculty should be held accountable for any inappropriate actions, such as asking leading questions or “lobbying” for a particular candidate, taken during a presidential interview, including….;
Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Academic Senate urges in the strongest manner possible that a faculty member from the hiring committee be present during the presidential interview of full-time faculty hires.
	General consensus among senators was that this is an important and sound resolution. Senate members were asked to discuss this proposal with their respective departments, as it will be an action item for approval at the next senate meeting.

f.	New DRAFT of BP 7205 – Employee Code of Ethics (First Reading)
	Upon first reading of the new draft Board Policy of a district wide universal employee code of ethics, senate members raised some valid criticisms of this draft.
	First concern is the fact that the senate already voted to disapprove a similarly worded policy last fall. This new revision is not substantially different.
	Second, this new draft combines many elements of both a generalized Board Policy and a more specific Academic Procedure. We need to discuss if this resolution in fact needs to be divided into the appropriate classifications, as it is not in the place of a Board Policy to enact Academic Procedure. It was noted by Senate member Munoz that this Board Policy is too specific and could not be enforceable as a Board Policy. She also expressed concern that this Policy may attempt to limit faculty professional activities and block our ability, as individual members of the community, to engage board members in procedural discourse. 
	Finally, while it was noted that an employee code of ethics was needed for accreditation purposes, and the district wide committee that reviewed this draft allowed it to proceed to DCHR for vote, there are still fundamental problems with the document as it currently stands.
	Senate members generally agreed that seeing the California Community College League’s template on employee ethics, from which BP 7205 was allegedly modeled, would be of benefit. Sezzi agreed to supply this template at the next senate meeting. 
	In the interim period, to reflect our displeasure with this document, Corbett motioned that the senate disapproves BP 7205. Munoz seconded this motion. The senate agreed,    11-0-0, that this Board Policy, as it currently stands, should be disapproved. 
	 
g.	BP 72XX – Emeritus status (First Reading)
	Board Policy 72XX states, “The District does not recognize emeritus status except as granted by the Board.” In other words, only the Board of trustees may grant emeritus status. This policy will in effect allow us to continue to grant emeritus statue by presenting eligible names to the board for approval.
	This item will appear as a second reading during the next senate meeting.

h.	AP 7120-C – Recruitment and Hiring of Part-Time Faculty (First Reading)
	Senate members were asked to discuss this item with their respective divisions, especially department chairs, as it will be an action item for vote at the next senate meeting.

i.	AP 7350 – Resignation (First Reading)
	General reaction to the first reading of Academic Procedure 7350 is that the resignation process seems unduly cumbersome under this AP.
	Senate members were asked to discuss this item with their respective divisions, as it will be a second reading item on the next senate agenda.

j.	BP 5030 – Fees (First Reading)
	Modifications to this Board Policy were in regards to charging a fee for duplicate certificates or diplomas. This fee “shall not exceed the actual cost of furnishing copies of [the] student record.”
	BP 5030 will appear as a second reading agenda item next senate meeting. 

k.	BP XXXX – Charging Special Admit Students the Price/Unit for Classes (First Reading)
	This Board Policy aims to charge special admit students (K-12 students) the full unit price instead of waiving their unit fees. General consensus among senate members was that charging these students the standard rate was acceptable, but further discussion was needed. Of note, were the following issues: would there still be a fee waiver for El Camino High students, would special admit students then be allowed to take a full time academic load, and would this change their registration priority from low to higher where they could potentially be displacing our traditional students?
	These issues and the policy will be discussed further at the next senate meeting.

l.	Enrollment Priorities for Student Athletes (First Reading)
	Morris is working with representatives from Moorpark and Oxnard Colleges on developing a system of priority enrollment for student athletes. This item will be open for discussion when more information becomes available. 

IV.	Information/Discussion Items
	Sezzi distributed a handout on the Curriculum Committee Sub-Committee’s report on Degree Requirements. Any comments to the task force should be made to the Curriculum Committee.
V.	President’s Report
a.	Administrative Council report
	Sezzi distributed a handout on the historical distribution of large classrooms. The purpose of this document is to make the procedure of assigning large classrooms a more transparent and fair process. 

b.	Board of Trustees meeting report 
	Sezzi reported that the subject of textbook regulation came up in the last Board of Trustees meeting. The Board engaged in a discussion about ways to govern instructor’s use of and requirements for textbooks. All three academic senate presidents were on hand to quickly remind the Board that textbook usage is solely the purview of faculty, and that the Board cannot regulate faculty textbook usage. 

c.	DCHR, DCSL, DTRW, DCAS, DAWC
i.	DCHR
	Review of equivalencies is underway. Sezzi will defer to the local ad hoc committee’s recommendation for each case that is reviewed. 

ii.	DCSL
1.	Single reading submission of curriculum for approval by Board of Trustees
	The Chancellor approved this at the last Board of Trustees meeting. 

iii.	DTRW
1.	Audit procedure
	New audit procedures specify that laboratory and activity classes are not available for auditing and the division dean needs to sign acknowledging each audit, but cannot approve or disapprove of the audit. 

2.	Statute of limitations on grade changes
	Currently, we do not have a statute of limitations for grade petitions and changes. It has been proposed that we adopt a three year limit. Sezzi asked the senators to discuss this matter with their colleagues for discussion at the next senate meeting.

3.	Status of AP/BPs on student standards of conduct, grievance procedures, etc.
	These documents are currently being reviewed by the District’s attorneys. 

VI.	Vice-President’s Report
	Pollack reported out on the development of an honors program at Ventura College. Planning is in the preliminary stages, and any ideas and input are welcome at the next meeting to be held on Feb. 16, 2010 at 3p.m. 
	Pollack also informed the senate that the One Book One Campus program will begin working on the fall book, Botany of Desire, soon. 

VII.	Campus Committee reports
a.	Curriculum Committee report
i.	Reading Competency
	It was reported that there will be an action item at the next Curriculum Committee meeting as to whether or not it would be worth while to explore the possibility of requiring a reading competency for graduation.

b.	Core College Design Team reports
		The report will be complete soon and will go to CRC for review. If approved, the report will then come to Academic Senate for review.

c.	Accreditation Team report
		Sezzi encouraged all of us to review the working draft documents posted on the VCCCD portal web site. All comments, recommendations, and feedback should be made through the portal. Sezzi commented that if he is Carbon Copied on any remarks, he will be willing to follow up through the appropriate channels. 

VIII.	Adjournment
	This meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.