Ventura College Academic Senate
Minutes
Thursday, 2 February 2012     MCW-312

I.	Call to Order
This meeting was called to order at 1:35. 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
Gardner, Ty—Math and Sciences
Guillen, Guadalupe—Student Services
Haines, Robbie—Senate Secretary
Lange, Cari—Senate Vice President
Mitchell, Nancy – Career & Technical Education
Muñoz, Paula—Student Services
Parker, Jennifer—Career and Technical Education
Pauley, Mark—Senate Treasurer
Sezzi, Peter—Senate President
The following guests were present:
Arevalo, Gloria—Articulation Officer
Fernandez, Ralph—Career and Technical Education
Tovar, Antonio—Vice President, ASVC

II.	Public Comments
No public comments were made.

III.	Acknowledgement of Guests—David Keebler, Vice-President of Business Services
See below (VCCCD Reserves & Budget Study Session) for notes.

IV.	Approval of Minutes—19 January 2012
Gardner moved to approve the minutes from the 19 January 2012 meeting, Arquilevich seconded. Motion approved unanimously.

V.	Study Sessions
a.	VCCCD Reserves & Budget Development for Fiscal Year 2012–2013
Keebler distributed handouts containing budget data and projections, and a discussion ensued. Keebler noted that in this fiscal year (FY12) state revenues were not realized, triggers were pulled and there is a $2.39 million shortfall in our budget. District reserves were spent to compensate. Costs of operation, increases due to COLA, required cuts, etc., were all enumerated and discussed in light of various scenarios involving how to handle our district reserves. Keebler explained the guiding principles by which reserves are currently being used, and he justified decisions that have been made to spend and not to spend reserves. He explained the difference between what the state 311 report shows as our reserves total and our adopted budget reserves total. The allocation model was discussed and explained in detail. Keebler explained that because the District Office does not produce any FTES, a formula was developed to determine its level of funding—average of 3 years’ funding prior to development of allocation model. Effect of full-time:part-time faculty ratio on the allocation model was discussed. The total budget is a combination of allocation model and one-time money. Any carrying forward of one-time dollars as a sort of internal reserve fund is dangerous because that money would need to be re-paid, so it’s essentially a simple delaying of a budget cut. Influence of productivity on allocation was discussed, as were the changes to that over time. Sezzi opined that the allocation model is fair and equitable and presently VC benefits from this current allocation model. VC’s status as mid-size college may be expensive to maintain but it benefits the district overall. It was confirmed that the District office lease was renewed, but with a buyout option after 6 months. Senators asked if a mechanism exists to evaluate that after 6  months. Sezzi: No, but pressure on the Board might make it happen. It was noted that about 40% of cuts will be from classrooms, and that part-time faculty will feel that part of cuts the most. Efficiency will be sought in cuts: restructuring, changes to Deans’ positions, and classified staff will be hit hard. Senators asked if Keebler had considered asking faculty and staff where we would cut or what we would most like to preserve from cuts. Keebler responded that due to the deep nature of the upcoming cuts there will be no way of addressing our cuts without some personnel reductions so restructuring will involve the Deans but nobody below that level. This is because those below the level of Dean are the people involved, so awkwardness, competition, and very hard feelings could result. It would likely be too problematic. Additionally, Keebler noted that we don’t know which of the scenarios we’ll be working under. Senators further noted that last time cuts discussions went to the Division level, and suggestions were solicited there for how to cut this much or that much. Involving nobody under the level of Deans removes working knowledge from the campus, and we shouldn’t throw that information out. Keebler: We’re so lean now, that’s very difficult. Cuts should be made systemically. Non-personnel budget is ~$1.86 million, cuts that must be made are at a minimum ~$2.56 million. Who wants to suggest personnel to be cut? Maybe Senate should put out division requests for what to cut and not to cut? 

Muñoz opined that the Senate should work to preserve programs and classes no matter what, since the Board will do whatever it will do regardless. She continued that we should recommend the prudent spend-down of our reserves. Other senators opined that we should have long-ranging projections to plan out the prudent spend-down; however, since we never know in advance what our funding levels from the State will be, it was noted that making such projections would essentially be crystal ball-gazing. It was noted that we have a $12 million problem for next year; if we want to have an impact on next year’s reserve spending, the budget will be developed very soon and we’d need to move this month. We have to plan, but we won’t know the magnitude of the cuts until after the election in November—5 months after our District budget is developed. Sezzi opined that our best strategy might be to address more of the cuts in this upcoming fiscal year (FY13) and then if the ballot initiative passes in November, it will be much easier to add back than to have to make additional cuts mid way through FY13.

Senators asked if we get to put money back in reserves if voter initiatives pass. Sezzi noted that the most prudent use of such money would be for one-time expenses so that those expenses don’t need to be added to future budgets. Muñoz reiterated that we should advocate prudent spend-down, that it’s our job to fight to preserve programs and classes. Senators discussed the idea that whatever we do doesn’t matter much, since the choice is between cutting things we didn’t need to cut or cutting things later that we need to cut to make up a budget shortfall. Keebler noted that if we have money left over, we’re allowed to transfer it to tech refresh or deferred maintenance accounts, but that money could never come back out of those funds. The role of the Foundation was discussed. It was noted that it’s possible for endowments to pay for classes, but they’re generally not set up that way. Ventura Promise funds actually end up going back to the state. 

After much discussion, there was general consensus to build FY13 budget by deficit spending from District reserves and that to plan for 8% cuts seemed appropriate.

b.	VCCCD Board of Trustees Goals
Senators read Board goals and wrote down ideas for how we have met them or what we would need to do so. Many comments centered around the idea that these are simply politics on the part of Board members, and some offense was taken at the idea that they should be considered anything more than that. For example, who says we’re not performing Goals 1 and 2? Is there any evidence to suggest that we’re not already meeting them? Sezzi produced and discussed data on all 112 California Community Colleges, ranked by a multiple variables, that shows that Ventura College is doing well. According to this analysis, no correlation exists between the number of General Education requirements and the number of degrees/certificates awarded or the number of transfers. Senators wondered why faculty are having to defend our performance when there is no evidence that we’re not performing well. It was noted that most ideas for improvement cost money and that, while money is not sufficient to provide improvement or solve problems, it is necessary. It was noted that many of the successes we currently enjoy resulted from efforts we made before the Board created these goals. A grant writing position was discussed which could provide funds for the improvement the Board wants. 

VI.	President’s Report
a.	BGOITF report—Consultant’s Report
Sezzi reported that District consultant Gaither Lowenstein got a permanent job at Long Beach City College (LBCC); his last day for the District is Monday, Feb 6 and he starts at LBCC on March 1. Senators suggested that we should ask for his fees back. Sezzi reported that the previous week’s governance meetings had been cancelled. Lowenstein passed out a draft of his Consultant’s Report at the BGOITF meeting. Sezzi the asked Senators if they believe that our current curricular process works and adequately meets our college’s needs. Senators agreed unanimously that current process works and no evidence has been provided to prove otherwise. Sezzi noted that he has the Consultant’s Report, he has shared it with Senate Exec which unanimously rejected it almost carte blanche. The Senate deemed it unnecessary to spend any additional time on the Consultant’s Report. 

b.	Administrative Council Report
i.	Textbooks
Sezzi reported that Susan Royer discussed textbooks and costs, and the sometimes very different costs between texts for different sections of the same courses. Electronic reserves are now operational in the library, and registered students can have access to scanned books through e-reserves. Discussion ensued regarding faculty from across campus sharing strategies for keeping textbook costs down for students. Pros and cons of unbound, electronic, and other alternate text version were discussed. Consensus was reached that departmental discussions on the topic are recommended.  Sezzi will share with Senators Royer’s report where each department can address this topic if necessary. 

ii.	Fall & Spring 2012 Registration periods 
Discussion among counselors occurred regarding whether registration periods coincide or not with contract employment times. 

VII.	Senate Subcommittee and Campus Committee reports
a.	Curriculum Committee report
Sezzi informed senators that no meeting occurred, so there was nothing to report. 

b.	Department Chair’s & Coordinators Council report
Title V, SLOs, discussed and the Summer Institute were all discussed. 
c.	Other Committees
Sezzi reported that the Learning Communities Committee met last week. Student engagement in the Fall 2011 paired learning communities classes when compared to the student engagement as measured by the last VC CCSSE survey was discussed. While VC was found to be slightly below average in terms of student engagement in all classes during our last CCSSE survey, when our learning communities at VC were surveyed, however, student engagement was found to be at about 90%! And these 6 paired learning community classes are among the last classes to reach full enrollment, but engagement in those classes was almost unbelievably high. Learning Communities therefore appear to have a real impact on student engagement. 

VIII.	Information Items
a.	Accreditation Update
Sezzi informed senators that there was nothing yet to report.

b.	AP 4100–Graduation Requirements for Degrees and Certificates
A student at MC was awarded a certificate even though that student had a “D” in a course that was required for that award. It was discussed that we should change our AP 4100 to say that we should require both a minimum overall 2.0 GPA requirement as well as a minimum “C” grade in all required certificate coursework. General consensus was reached that this is a topic that the Senate should examine in detail when MC develops a formal proposal to change this AP.

IX.	Adjournment
This meeting adjourned at 3:29 p.m.