Ventura College Academic Senate
Minutes
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
Campus Center Conference Room

I.	Call to Order
Meeting called to order at 2:36 p.m. The following Senate members were present:
Arquilevich, Gabe—English and LRC
Beynon, Sharon—English and LRC
Fiumerodo, Gigi—Math and Sciences
Forde, Richard—Math and Sciences
Gardner, Ty—Math and Sciences
Guillen, Guadalupe—Student Services
Haines, Robbie—Senate Secretary
Lange, Cari—Senate Vice President
Mundell, Meredith—Career and Technical Education (alternate for Nancy Mitchell)
Muñoz, Paula—Student Services
Parker, Jennifer—Career and Technical Education
Sezzi, Peter—Senate President
The following guests were present:
Mansfield, Casey— Career and Technical Education
Sanchez, Ramiro—EVP, Student Learning

II.	Public Comments 
No public comments were made.

III.	Acknowledgement of Guests
No guests were acknowledged.

IV.	Approval of Minutes
Approval of minutes postponed until next regularly scheduled Senate meeting.

V.	Study Sessions
a.	VCCCD Board Policy Objectives
The Senate engaged in an open and frank dialogue about the Board of Trustee’s proposed policy objectives. Sezzi reminded the Senate that the Board is the sole policy agent of the District and that the Senate may comment on these objectives but it remains solely the responsibility of the Board to adopt, modify or change its policy objectives. Sezzi noted that these policy objectives were the product of the Board’s nine-hour, yearly planning meeting this past June. Sezzi also noted that the Chancellor noted a desire to achieve all policy goals and objectives met within the next two years. Finally, Sezzi noted that all three Senate Presidents, as well Classified Senate Presidents, College Presidents, EVPs and VPs all were a part of the Board planning meeting that helped define these board objectives. 

Sezzi then solicited comments from Senators that he could carry to next Board meeting. Discussion centered who has the authority to change curriculum. Sezzi noted that he contacted the Statewide Academic Senate Chair on Curriculum and he found out that Boards can only vote up or down on curriculum, that’s all. If a Board elects not to approve a course, it should provide their rationale for not approving a course. Boards that develop curriculum would probably be breaking law. 
Discussion then moved onto whether common course numbering would be easier for students. After some discussion, the Senate agreed to host a future study session on that topic. The Senate then moved on to a discussion on whether Board is overstepping bounds and encroaching on purview of faculty or individual campuses with regards to the development of curriculum. Discussion then moved onto by what mechanism does the Board plan to achieve these goals/objectives—do them themselves? approve us doing them? Maybe they worded objectives strongly simply to get our attention? Discussion moved onto the dropping of courses aimed at students two levels below college-level—if those courses are dropped, is there any compensation for students who no longer qualify for entry into our school? Are we working with high schools to fill in that gap? In was noted that we should advocate for a higher percentage of cuts coming from college or district areas other than “students in seats.”

Sezzi noted that he will speak up at next week’s Board meeting about many of the topics raised by the Senate. Sezzi also asked the Senate if we should continue to invite Board members to our Senate meeting. It was so agreed and we will begin doing so during October. Sezzi reminded the Senate to ask Board members about these policy goals and objectives when they come to our Senate meetings this academic year.

b.	Accreditation Follow-Up Report 
Questioned were raised about the Citizens’ Advisory Board. They are mentioned in most or all District Recommendations however no one really knows exactly who they are. Historically, this body hasn’t met; additionally, the timelines listed in the District’s portion of the Accreditation Follow-Up Report seem odd and poorly planned/communicated and with little or no chance for faculty input. There was a general agreement amongst the Senators that campus communications have made great improvements, but District-to-campus communications have not improved at all. It was agreed that given the paucity of time to review the District’s response, we can’t comment on this aspect of the follow-up report at this time because we don’t know what they’ve done. District gave campus only about three days to review this document. District’s poor handling of this document symptomatic of its communications problems overall. Lange pointed out that Recommendation #4 appears to contradict BP Objectives.

c.	Ventura College Planning Parameters
Senators asked if the District has identified any potential cuts in advance of next year’s anticipated budget shortfall like the three campuses have already done. Collegiality and good leadership suggest that District should have completed and shared their worst-case scenario planning before and/or at the same time as asking us to complete ours. Sezzi pointed out that, although bad, our current situation is better than how cuts were handled in ‘04–’05. Suggestions were made about potential revenue-generating scenarios. Could we raise some money to help compensate for budget cuts? Perhaps contact the VC Foundation? Methods of raising funds discussed. Financial viability of Bookstore/Cafeteria discussed. What about consolidated programs—no district venue to discuss these issues but issues cannot be carried out by this or that college in a vacuum. It was noted that it is very important to bear in mind that nobody knows all the details of this process. It was also noted that the “Ventura College Planning Parameters” document merely proposes programmatic cuts, but end result is not known. Program review documents and the College Planning Council are the venues to discuss or dispute the proposed programmatic cuts. 

d.	VCCCD Participatory Governance Manual
Document not distributed. This document will be discussed at a study session at our next Senate meeting. Some discussion then centered on why did the District hire an outside consultant to lead the District participatory governance committees DTRW and DCSL. Sezzi mentioned that our current Participatory Governance manual states that the Chancellor shall appoint a “staff member” to co-chair these committees. Sezzi noted that he will mention this discrepancy in his Board report on Tuesday. Lastly, there will be a formal resolution at next Senate meeting on this topic.

VI.	Action Items
a.	Accreditation Follow-Up Report (Second Reading)
Gardner moved to approve campus report, Arquilevich seconded, motion carried unanimously. General agreement that we need at least two weeks to read District report.

b.	Ventura College Integrated Planning, Program Review & Resource Allocation Model Handbook (Fourth Reading)
Mundell asked about what did the repeated reference to “rubrics” mean throughout the document. Sezzi noted that it was he who placed the word rubric throughout the document in the hope that divisions and/or Senate would develop rubrics that could be publicized prior to the College Planning Council beginning its work this semester. It was noted that the Staffing Priorities Committee has used a rubric in developing its ranking of faculty requests and it was hoped that other committees to which the CPC refers requests (e.g., Facilities Oversight Group, Technology Committee, Budget Resource Council, etc.) would follow suit. After some discussion, there was agreement to remove unclear paragraphs mentioning rubrics but to work this into the document for next year. Arquilevich moved to approve with this change, Lange seconded, motion carried unanimously. 

VII.	President’s Report
a.	Consultation Council report
Most of previous meeting focused on which cuts may be made at which campuses.

b.	Administrative Council report
LRC Workroom to be divided into cubicles for classified staff, this change made without any communication, preparation, or input from those affected. This is not within the Senate’s purview but noted that Administration did not play nicely. Sanchez also noted that this change was needed for additional faculty offices were needed in the LRC and that some classifieds were in offices in the third floor of the LRC that were now needed for growth/replacement faculty in the social sciences.
c.	DCAS
The structural deficit model was discussed and how unstable funding sources have been used to fund predictable/ongoing costs. Discussion centered about changing model to use these funds to supply other costs like furniture, databases, etc., with a 4–5-year step-down process so that changes to the general fund will not be immediate. Presently, surplus funds are moved to reserves but this proposal suggests that monies be moved to address structural deficits. Gardner suggested that rather than using the amount of computers that each campus has as the means to calculate how much each college gets to fund a tech refresh plan, why not use FTES as the multiplier as it is used to address other structural deficits.  Haines moved to approve proposed changes, Guillen seconded, motion carried 11-0-1 with Mundell abstaining.

VIII.	Information/Discussion Items
MCW-312 meeting room will be available for Senate meetings starting at our next meeting. There was general agreement to meet there from now on.

IX.	Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 4:11 p.m.