Ventura College Academic Senate
Minutes     Thursday, 6 October 2011     MCW 312

I.	Call to Order
This meeting was called to order at 1:34 p.m. The following Senate members were present:
Algiers, Kammy—Math and Sciences
Arquilevich, Gabe—English and Learning Resources
Beynon, Sharon—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
Pauley, Mark—Senate Treasurer
Sezzi, Peter—Senate President
The following guests were present:
Anderson, Mike—Career and Technical Education
Chavez, Daniel—ASVC
Fernandez, Ralph—Career and Technical Education
Selzler, Joe—Math and Sciences
Turner, Steve—Student Services
Tovar, Antonio—Vice President, ASVC

II.	Public Comments
Fernandez commented that his program, Architecture, is currently being considered for discontinuance, yet he’d never been notified that this was a possibility. He’d also never been told what criteria were used to make such decisions nor what he could do in advance to avoid this fate. He worked years to make his program transferrable to local universities and without his program, transfer to a university for an architecture degree will be impossible—there is no other path to an architecture degree for many students. VC is the only school in a 200-mile area ranging from San Luis Opisbo to Pasadena with an architecture program and the program is impacted at our school. Its discontinuance, therefore, makes no sense. Fernandez explained that his program’s focus has been on transfer and because an AA degree doesn’t help them, students don’t try for one.  He also explained that he has never recommended students apply for certificates because he didn’t know that his program would be judged by this metric. Muñoz explained that only 50% of VC students say they want to transfer, so eliminating programs that don’t lead to transfer is misguided. Fernandez said that if he had known in advance what was required to make this program fit whatever the criteria are, he’d have recommended those things to our students, but he didn’t know that until now. Gardner suggested that perhaps Fernandez should track former students as a way of demonstrating their success, as that can be his program’s defense against discontinuance. Sezzi mentioned that multiple criteria should be used, like lifelong learning. Muñoz explained that it is an unfair burden for us to have to track successes of former students; It’s not our job. When asked ‘who has the right to discontinue programs?’ Sezzi mentioned that this should be a faculty-driven process, which is why the AP on Program Discontinuance is on this agenda. However, administration can effectively discontinue a program by “attrition:” placing it in the back of the catalog, greying it out, not offering sections, etc. It was noted that that is exactly what happened with Home Economics. Sezzi mentioned that the current program review document unfortunately doesn’t have a place for programs that have been proposed for discontinuance to request that they continue to exist, so different programs may put that request and supporting data in a variety of spots, and it may get lost. It was then asked what, exactly, is the forum for a program to defend itself from potential discontinuance before the decision to discontinue has been made? We always hear that the CPC is the forum for appealing after a decision for discontinuance has been made but we’re not told what the forum is for defending a program before such a decision has been made. Sezzi mentioned that the real place to advocate for program from discontinuance is at division meetings. Sezzi mentioned that the deans were told yesterday by Calote to be the hardliners on this matter. Muñoz mentioned that we don’t have to cut anything, they’ll cut it for us. Sezzi also asked the senators to think about the fact that we have about 2700 unfunded FTES and how should we address this issue. 

III.	Acknowledgement of Guests
No guests were acknowledged.

IV.	Approval of minutes
Pauley moved to approve minutes from 15 September 2011 meeting, Arquilevich seconded. Motion approved with Morris abstaining. 

Muñoz motioned to move second reading of AP 4021 (Action Item b) to this point in the meeting, Hendricks seconded, motion carried unanimously. Gardner motioned to move Committee Appointments (Action Item a) to this point in the meeting. (See below for those discussions, in originally agendized positions.)

V.	Study Session—Common Course Numbering (CCN)
Discussion limited by consent to 15 minutes. Arquilevich asked who decides on CCN? Is it a euphemism for making common course outlines? Sezzi responded that the Board doesn’t understand what it’s asking for. We, therefore, should define what this term means for the benefit of the Board. Also, the Board cannot make it happen and while they can pressure us, no one can force us. Algiers asked if other colleges having this discussion. Sezzi mentioned that this very topic will be discussed at least one breakout session at this Fall’s Plenary session of the statewide Academic Senate. Haines asked if we don’t want CCN, then, why can’t we just say no? Sezzi said that yes, we can take this action but it might make our lives difficult. Gardner speaks in favor of CCN, worth considering, and may help students. Sezzi solicited definition of CCN, complex discussion followed. What is its goal? What is it intended to facilitate—transfer to UC? transfer to CSU? Satisfy local (i.e., District or college) degree requirements? Hendricks mentioned that students are the customer; we’re taking our eye off the ball if we lose sight of what matters to them. Degrees don’t matter to a lot of students. Guillen mentioned that counseling is already doing this on a case-by-case basis, considering what courses on transcripts count for which courses here. Lange then mentioned that even if we want to, we may not be able to achieve CCN. She explained that the Anthropology tried to number a new course to match a comparable one at MC, we were told we couldn’t because that number belonged to an archived class and overlapping/conflicting number are not permissible. Pauley questioned what is the goal for this proposal? If it is to create ease of access is the goal, let’s work on that without opening this can of worms. Algiers mentioned that the number of units might be addressable for consistency. Maybe names, if not numbers, could be consistent. Arquilevich mentioned that CCN might be a backdoor approach to streamline our English 1A as a target; the real goal is reducing high-unit values for particular courses. Pauley mentioned that this could be a mechanism for eliminating duplicate programs. Muñoz said that CCN is more than that, it could lead to a proposal for district-wide departments, district counseling, etc. Gardner said that large-unit courses could be valid for cutting for budgetary reason. Mitchell said that CCN limits our creativity, limits our flexibility as a college to change most aspects of our curriculum. Sezzi mentioned that CCN would require a district Curriculum Committee, but the Board cannot do that. Only we can do that, it’s 100% in our sole domain. Muñoz explained that this matter originated with the District, not the Board. Sezzi retorted that certain board members actually support it. Sezzi recommend bringing this up asking of board members when they visit our Senate. General (but not unanimous) consensus that CCN is misguided and undesirable in many ways as this (most likely) will not accomplish its apparent goal of making things smoother and more transparent to students. 

VI.	President’s Report
a.	Consultation Council report—District Response to Accreditation
Senate summary of District communication problems passed out by Sezzi; discussed ensued. Sezzi had not yet signed the District response to accreditation report because no improvement has been made in district communications and district has glossed over problems present in District Accreditation #4. All agreed that while there remains room for more improvement, college communication has improved. All agreed that District communication is bad and has not improved. Sezzi requested consent from senate to either not sign the response or to sign it provisionally with written reason. Pauley suggested appending the summary of communication problems to the document as a minority report. Muñoz suggested not signing at all. Sezzi reported that neither other Senate President had signed yet—all three hesitating, all three should be on same page. Sezzi suggested provisional logic: if other Presidents sign, he’ll sign provisionally with written reason; if they don’t sign, he won’t sign. Not signing can look bad and make a lot of work for us especially if one or both other Senate Presidents sign their reports. Agreed by consent. Senate will hold a special meeting at 4:45 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 September 2011 to discuss the VC Senate’s Minority Report.

b.	Board Ad Hoc Committee on Planning—VCCCD Board Policy Objectives
A decision will be made on this document at board meeting on Tuesday, 11 September 2011. Sezzi recommends senators ask Trustees questions about this when they visit us. Sezzi will focus at that meeting on CCN (Goal 1.F) and the loss of basic skills courses that are two levels below college level (Goal 1.D.).

c.	Administrative Council report
Sezzi mentioned that there was an Admin Council this morning but nothing of major import was discussed.

d.	DCHR report
Minor change was made to screening documents for new full-time hires: rating scale will change in a way that will give greater flexibility in the paper screening. This will allow for greater ability to have exceptional candidates float to the top.

e.	College Planning Council report
This body essentially in a holding pattern until division reports begin. Role of the CPC not entirely clear to date other than being the venue for discontinuance appeals and being an process auditor of the new program review process. 

VII.	Vice-President’s Report—Citizen’s Advisory Body report
Meznek began meeting by immediately claiming a dire budget, claimed it was necessary to cut 1400–1500 sections from next budget—that’s 20% of our district. The committee expressed concern about cutting remedial courses (i.e. two levels below college level) but offered only vague suggestions. Meznek claimed that it was not our job to help those students. Several board members very concerned, e.g. what about cities like Santa Paula where there’s no adult education to send those students to? CCN was discussed, Meznek claimed “we have ways of softening employees” toward this process. Lange noted to senators that this is an example of bad communication: what the colleges say is not what the District represents colleges as being in favor of. It was asked if minutes from that meeting available? Sezzi explained that no, the minutes are unavailable because this body meets so irregularly minutes take a very long time to be approved; also, are not detailed to the level of recording who said what. Arquilevich noted that an example of “softening” can be the gutting of our literature courses as a means to “convince” the English faculty to lower the unit value of Eng 1A.

VIII.	Treasurer’s Report—Budget and Resource Council
The first meeting included a discussion of the state and local budget situation and a review of the new program review process. 

IX.	Secretary’s report—AFT Calendar Development Task Force
This group has decided on a calendar to present to the District. AFT 1828 President and Chief Negotiator Steve Hall expressed thanks to our Senate for last year’s task force’s hard work. 

X.	Senate Subcommittee reports
a.	Curriculum Committee
There was not much new to report. The deadline has passed for routine 5-year curriculum renewals.  Faculty were reminded to look at their courses periodically once launched, since technical review group will make comments and courses will be on hold until those comments are addressed. 

b.	Learning Communities Committee
Next meeting will be on 18 October in LRC 114 from 4:00–5:00 p.m. Sezzi created a website for this committee (senate site, then committees link, then learning communities). The 4-page report from faculty who attended the recent conference will be found there.

c.	Other Committees
No other committees made a report.

XI.	Action Items
a.	District & College Committee Appointments
The following slate of candidates for District and College Committees was presented to the Council:
DCSL: Steve Turner (Instructional Rep)
Staffing Priorities Committee [2 year terms]: Dave Farris (Student Services), Ted Prell (Voc/Tech), Steve Turner (General Education)
The slate of candidates as presented was moved by Chen and seconded by Hendricks. Passed unanimously.	

b.	AP 4021–Program Discontinuance (Second Reading)
Chancellor’s consultant Gaither Lowenstein’s changes to this document and Senate changes in response were noted and discussed. Haines mentioned that while data must factor in to any discontinuance decision, it is impossible to enumerate and quantify every possible factor that may influence such a decision. Qualitative and non-quantifiable factors may play a large role and the factors that inform a decision for one program may be completely different from those that inform the decision for a different program. Trying to contain all that in a single document is unworkable and unrealistic and it leaves decision-makers without the flexibility they’ll need. Many senators agreed. Muñoz asked about sticking to the senate’s original version. Sezzi explained that there are negative political ramifications with our relationships with other colleges in the District who feel that it’s safer to be explicit. He stated that while we like the vague language and more local control, the other two Senates in this District do not agree with us. Sezzi then asked what is the pleasure of the Senate. We should go with our new changes, for political reasons. Pauley proposed adding a small “for example” list would be better, because then it really does read like examples, not an exhaustive list. Turner petitioned that our college culture and purpose is at stake. Senate should fight hard to maintain it. Sezzi added bullet #5 on the last page of the document with the aim of preventing “greying out” or placing at the back of catalog or otherwise using any back-door way of deleting program without going through the program discontinuance process. Haines motioned to move this to third reading, Muñoz seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Sezzi will bring back for a third reading whatever final document comes out from next Thursday’s DCSL meeting.

c.	Resolution on Following the VCCCD Participatory Governance Manual (Second Reading)
Sezzi requested permission to read resolution before this document before the Board. After a minor edit to the document, Muñoz motioned, Gardner seconded and the resolution passed unanimously. 

XII.	Information/Discussion Items
A very brief discussion was made on enrollment priorities AP. It was decided by consent to move this item to next senate meeting, by which time Sezzi the draft AP will have been discussed at DCSL. 

XIII.	Adjournment
This meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.