District Academic Senate Meeting Thursday, December 13 th, 2012 Los Angeles City College

Transcription

1 District Academic Senate Meeting Thursday, December 13 th, 2012 Los Angeles City College MINUTES Attendance Present Officers Don Gauthier (President), David Beaulieu (1 st Vice President), Kathleen Bimber (2 nd Vice President), Alex Immerblum (Treasurer), Angela Echeverri (Secretary) City John Freitas, Dana Cohen East Alex Immerblum, Jeff Hernandez Harbor Susan McMurray, William Hernandez Mission Angela Echeverri Pierce Tom Rosdahl, Elizabeth Atondo, Pam Brown, Blanca Adajian Southwest Trade Tom McFall, Inhae Ahn, Lourdes Brent Valley Josh Miller, Vic Fusilero West Adrienne Foster, Helen P. Young Guests President Renee Martinez (City), Todd Scott (City), 1. Call to order/approval of Agenda: President Gauthier called the meeting to order 1:30 pm. Agenda was approved (Freitas/Foster M/S/P). 2. Approval of October 11 th Minutes: Minutes of the 10/11/12 DAS meeting were approved with several corrections (Rosow/Freitas M/S/P). 3. Public Speakers: President Renee Martinez welcomed DAS members to Los Angeles City College. Action Items 1. Final draft of DAS Constitution: Gauthier and Beaulieu distributed a handout of Article 8 of the DAS Constitution (Amendment to the Constitution and Bylaws). Beaulieu explained that this was first discussed by the Exec after the DAS meeting at Mission, and presented at the DAS October meeting at Trade where Jeff Hernandez introduced an additional change to Section 4 of the article. Section 4: Any proposed amendment to the ratification process in Article 8, Section 3, shall be subject to the amendment ratification process in effect prior to May That process entails that the District Senate shall provide ballots for each faculty in numbers sufficient for distribution to all eligible faculty members. This constitutional amendment shall be announced at least four weeks in advance. Elections shall be under the supervision of the president of the college Academic Senate who shall report the results of the voting to the District Academic Senate President within two weeks after the 1

2 campus vote. To be adopted, an amendment must receive at least two-thirds of all votes cast. Hernandez stated that the purpose of this language was to ensure that if the DAS changes how it ratifies amendments, it is done by a broader faculty vote. In other words, while regular amendments to the constitution would be handled by a vote of the local senates, any change to the ratification amendment would have to be voted on by a vote of all eligible faculty. Beaulieu said the Exec members had discussed his amendment and did not think there was any reason to oppose it, though they weren t convinced it was necessary. Beaulieu then reviewed the entire proposed Article 8. After discussion, some additional changes were made to it, as indicated below: Section 1: Every six years, the DAS Constitution and Bylaws shall be reviewed so as to revise or amend said documents. An amendment is defined as a substantive change in the language or intent of an existing article or bylaw, or a proposed new article or bylaw. Section 2: Amendments to the Constitution may be proposed by a majority vote of the DAS Executive Committee, as a body, or by a majority vote of any local college academic senate. If the proposed amendment is approved,. The proposed amendment goes to the full DAS for a vote. To adopt the amendment, at least two thirds of the full DAS present and eligible to vote must agree. Section 3: Following adoption by the full DAS, the proposed amendment is sent to the local senates for ratification. Two-thirds of local senates (six of the nine colleges) must ratify the proposed amendment for it to take effect. If ratified, the new amendment shall be deemed effective immediately, and formal notice of the outcome shall be sent to all senates. Section 4: Any proposed amendment to the ratification process in Article 8, Section 3, shall be subject to the amendment ratification process in effect prior to May 2013 shall require a vote of all eligible faculty. That process entails that the District Senate shall provide ballots for each faculty in numbers sufficient for distribution to all eligible faculty members. This constitutional amendment This vote shall be announced at least four weeks in advance and shall be conducted under the supervision of the presidents of the college Academic Senates. They shall report the results of the voting to the District Academic Senate President within two weeks of voting. To be adopted, such an amendment must receive at least two-thirds of all valid votes cast. 2

3 Section 5: Any proposed or addition to the Bylaws must be presented to the DAS Exec, and a majority must approve the proposed change before it can go to the full DAS for approval. If approved by a majority of the full DAS present and voting, the Bylaw change shall become effective immediately and formal notice of the outcome shall be sent to all senates. The DAS approved the proposed revisions to Article 8 of the DAS Constitution, including the additional revisions noted above. Freitas/Immerblum MSU. Freitas then discussed additional constitution revisions summarized in a handout titled Proposed revisions to the Draft of the Revised DAS Constitution. They consisted of the following new language: Article 4: Officers and Organization of the DAS Section 2: The DAS shall adopt Bylaws and Standing Rules as necessary for implementing the provisions of this Constitution. Article 6: Functions Section 3: Nothing in this document shall deprive any college academic senate of its right of direct access to the LACCD Chancellor or Board of Trustees, or of its right to serve as the official voice of its college faculty on academic and professional matters at the college level. Article 7: Referendum Section 1: The DAS shall establish procedures for the conduct of referenda. Only tenured and tenure-track faculty shall be eligible to vote in a referendum. Section 2: Upon petition of fifteen percent of the tenured and tenure-track faculty of the LACCD who protest any action taken by the DAS, such action shall be submitted to a referendum within thirty calendar days of the original action. The protested action of the DAS shall be nullified if disapproved by a majority of the votes cast by eligible faculty. Article 8: Parliamentary Authority: Section 1. The DAS shall adopt a recognized parliamentary authority, and said parliamentary authority shall be specified in the Bylaws. All questions of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary law shall be resolved by said parliamentary authority, except as otherwise provided for in the Constitution, the Bylaws, and the Standing Rules. The DAS approved the changes above. The addition of a new Article 8: Parliamentary Authority, changes the numbering of subsequent articles. 3

4 The DAS will bring back proposed changes to its by-laws to the 2/14/12 DAS meeting at Harbor. 2. LACCD Policy on Prerequisites, Co-requisites, and Advisories: Bimber discussed proposed revisions to the policy approved by the District Curriculum Committee (DCC) on 9/14/12. She added that the state now allows faculty to establish prerequisites using content review as long as a disproportionate impact study is conducted. The DAS approved the LACCD Policy on Prerequisites, Co-requisites, and Advisories - Rosdahl/Freitas MSU. 3. Procedures for the Development and Approval of New Educational Programs and Options (E-64): Bimber discussed revisions to E-64 that were approved by DCC on 10/12/12. Most of the proposed changes centered on the steps of the program approval process. Bimber added that the state decided that skill certificates cannot be transcripted. Faculty must submit their certificates to the state if they want them approved. The DAS approved the revisions to Procedures for the Development and Approval of New Educational Programs and Options (E-64) MSU. 4. BR 8603 ELAC Resolution: Immerblum stated his concern about the District s response to the DAS resolution on Board Rule The DAS reaffirmed its year-long position on Board Rule 8603 approved on December 8, 2011 Immerblum/McFall MSU. 5. LACCD DE/DL Student Verification resolution (Emergency): Gauthier distributed the LACCD Distance Education Policy: Authentication and Verification of Student Identity. He explained that the LACCD does not have a policy for the authentication of student identity. The proposed policy includes the following: Authentication and Verification of Student Identity: Specifies that one or more methods will be used to authenticate student identity. Definitions of Distance Education and Correspondence Education. This distinction between both types of courses needed to be clarified. Correspondence courses are not DE; they are typically self-paced courses in which students have limited interaction with instructors. Academic Honesty and Student Conduct policies also apply to the DE environment. Course Approval: The policy specifies that each DE course must be reviewed and approved separately. State Authorization: Under federal regulations, a student that is enrolled in any DE program offered by a post-secondary institution cannot use Title IV program funds for that program if the institution 4

5 the student is attending does not have authorization in the State in which the student resides. Gauthier explained that each college is supposed to have an agreement that authorizes it to offer DE courses to students in other states; some states charge fees for DE courses at colleges in other states. Yasmin Delahoussaye and others are currently conducting a 50-state survey to see what each state requires and where the LACCD colleges stand. In the meantime, the LACCD needs to have this language in the form of a Board Rule or administrative regulation (E-reg), so the Valley Colleges have something to show the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) teams in spring Hernandez added that colleges have to show that there is regular and substantial interaction between teacher and students in DE courses. Beaulieu added the DE people have been warning about the DE accreditation issues for years. John Freitas distributed a draft document titled Authentication and Verification of Student Identity in DE Courses. The proposed language states: a. The Chancellor shall establish procedures that will provide methods to authenticate or verify the student s identity for distance education and correspondence education courses. b. One or more of these methods will be used to authenticate or verify the student s identity: i. Secure credentialing/login and password ii. Proctored examinations, or iii. New or other technologies and practices effective in verifying student identification. Gauthier said we would like to have the Board approve this before the March accreditation visits. The DAS approved the draft Board Rule on Authentication and Verification of Student Identity in Distance Education Courses (Freitas/McFall) MSU. Gauthier said the DAS would bring this proposal to Chancellor La Vista, Vice Chancellor Delahoussaye, and the Office of Legal Counsel. We will take the remainder of the proposal from Linda Delzeit to work on E-89. They will meet in January of Discussion Items 6. Monument Policy: Gauthier distributed a handout with draft language for a Board Rule, titled Monument Policy. He stated that some of the colleges put aside 1.5 percent of their bond money for monuments. There has to be a policy that defines a monument, establishes guidelines for donations and monuments, and lists actions that may be taken by the Board. The proposed language states that the College President shall determine the composition of the 5

6 College Monument Committee. Gauthier asked DAS members whether they want to have a say on who gets on this committee. McMurray reported there was a proposal to name Harbor s Workforce Building after former Trustee Warren Furutani. Gauthier stated that monuments honoring living persons are not generally allowed. DAS members asked whether this policy is going to require additional insurance and who would pay for it. Gauthier replied that section d of the proposed policy allows the District to remove any donated monument, if funding for its maintenance or repair becomes unavailable. Immerblum said there should be a separate section on the proposal of a Campus Monument Committee. Brown mentioned that California State University at Northridge (CSUN) has many plaques from a wide range of donors including Bank of America, Pizza Hut, etc. Adajian asked why the DAS was considering this policy now, when we can t even afford to pay for copies. Brent asked whether faculty want to have anything to say about where this money is going. Consultation: Gauthier stated he would send out information about the last consultation via . Miller stated it was one of the more productive consultation meetings. Rosdahl said Chancellor LaVista s demeanor was different and he asked faculty for assistance. Gauthier said that LaVista only wanted to consider issues submitted prior to the meeting. He rejected several agenda items dealing with nonresponsiveness and said the DAS needed to communicate directly with Delahoussaye. He does not want to discuss issues he does not receive ahead of time; which is different from consultation with previous chancellors, where consultation was more open and flexible. McMurray said she was insulted because LaVista seemed to blame the senate for the problems with accreditation. The District has not responded to the five district recommendations. The responses will not be ready (before the 18 th ) in time for senates to review them before their Midterm Reports are due to the ACCJC. McFall said the chancellor promised the funds to help with accreditation. Immerblum said LaVista asked for assistance addressing the SLO and accreditation problems. Immerblum added it is not our job or purview to help the district manage; the chancellor seems to think we are there to support him to do his job. He seems to finally understand that he needs faculty collaboration. Hernandez said the consultation agenda needs to be mutually agreed upon. There needs to be a lot of preplanning and we must identify one or two crucial issues; if important issues don t go on the agenda then make it clear to the Chancellor they will go to the Board. Gauthier stated LaVista was upset because the DAS went over his head and met with five trustees about the situation at Mission. Reports 1 st Vice President s Report (Beaulieu) 1. DBC Report: Beaulieu explained that the approval of Proposition 30 would result in the reimbursement of $31 million in restoration money plus almost $4 million in growth money. Proposition 30 money can only be used for nonadministrative costs. There is a lot of reimbursement money for statemandated costs. He reported they are running into a snag about whether the District Office should get any additional funds. The usual distribution would 6

7 be based on FTES. However, they are arguing that because the District Office and Information Technology cannot get any of the Proposition 30 funds, they should get some of this mandated reimbursement money. Gauthier said faculty on each campus need to watch that budgets are increasing by the amounts shown in the Education Protection Act budget handouts from the DO in the correct line items. These funds can be used for tutoring, counseling, and other instructional support expenditures. Beaulieu added that with the passage of Proposition 30, only Southwest and Valley Colleges are in deficit. Brent asked for clarification about who should make these proposals. Atondo replied Pierce has Scheduling Advisement and Educational Planning Committees; they talked about where they wanted to add these sections. Rosdahl said all voting members are faculty, except for two vice presidents. There is a lot of conversation about what needs to be offered to help students finish and the college needs. The recommendation was the colleges could apply this money towards fall 2012, which was underway before the election and passage of Proposition 30. The motion from DBC is to transfer one-third of the contingency reserve (one-third is about $10 million) to the colleges, essentially making the 6.5 % cut a 3.5% cut. That motion should go to the Board on Wednesday. 2. Energy Oversight Committee (EOC): EOC is once again meeting on a monthly basis. 3. Transfer Committee: The committee had a good meeting about transfer degrees and what colleges need to do to be compliant with SB nd Vice President s Report (Bimber) 1. DCC Report: LACCD Discipline Day: Bimber distributed a flyer for the LACCD Discipline Day on Friday February 22, 2013 and asked DAS members to encourage faculty to attend. If faculty share how they developed their Transfer Model Curriculum (TMC) degrees, they can help others. Maury Pearl s office will assist with the data and labor market studies. All disciplines are welcome even if they are not listed. State Mandates: Regarding C-ID and TMCs, the state has mandated colleges must have 80% of their current degrees converted to TMS degrees by fall 2013, which means they have to be sent to the state by June of this year. Furthermore, 100% are due to the state by June It is the purview of the faculty to determine whether TMC degrees are appropriate for their programs. Bimber told faculty they shouldn t feel forced to approve a degree that won t help students. She suggested starting discussions with the curriculum dean, department chair, matriculation officer, and articulation officer. Come up with a list, meet with the department, and ask them if they agree with a strategy. If you have a degree that is transfer-like, you can only keep it if you adopt a TMC in the discipline. Bimber said if you have a justification, you can keep it. The state views a Plan A transfer degree with 18 units of major courses and 36 units of general education as similar to the 7

8 TMC. If the state college does not require all the TMC courses, you can justify not adopting it. Foster asked if this is in writing; Bimber replied it is implied in the memo. The next DCC is meeting tomorrow. Treasurer s Report (Immerblum) Immerblum reported that the DAS is asking for $381,000 for This is almost the identical budget from , with some slight changes in budget categories. President s Report (Gauthier) Election Committee for Spring 2013: DAS elections will be in March 2013 and newly elected officers installed in July. The DAS will honor June B. Smith at the Harbor DAS meeting in February. Bimber, Brent, Fusilero, Freitas, and Adajian volunteered to serve on the Elections Committee. Bond Steering Committee (BSC) Report: Gauthier said BSC is being given information as necessary and is functioning with new presidents and the District Facilities Director, Jim O Reilly. The Energy Oversight Committee is reporting to BSC. Beyond the Horizon Report o Single LACCD Accreditation Visit: It sounds like a 2015 ACCJC visit for all nine LACCD campuses may happen. However, it may also be only a threat. The difficulties of managing nine (plus one for the District) simultaneously will be daunting. o Using SLOs rather than Carnegie rule requirements. There is some talk about revamping or replacing the Carnegie rule for studentinstructor contact. Our whole union system is based on the contact hour. It may also be a hidden attack on unions and driven by the folks pushing completion agendas. Also, there are DE/SDL issues. Be aware that the ACCJC will be looking at contact hours in DE and looking to distinguish DE from correspondence courses. Article 40 (Distance Education) negotiations: Gauthier reported that discussions with the Faculty Guild (AFT 1521) leadership are still crawling along. The packet has language we agreed upon. Beaulieu added the main point of this was that the contract language overreached and was intruding into senate issues. On the other hand, there is an area where there is overlap. We settled on diplomatic language about issues of mutual concern to the senate and union. If the senate is OK with it, a college can have a single committee for Distance Education. However, colleges may establish a separate committee to handle senate business. The proposed language still needs to be signed off by the DAS and AFT leadership. Gauthier added there is a second problem; some in the AFT leadership are objecting to any expansion of the committee s role. The union had a concern that you cannot mandate that faculty take a course or workshop, if it is not mandated for all. This is narrow; you cannot stipulate any sort of training. On some campuses faculty have to develop a shell and their first lessons before their DE courses 8

9 can get approved. Other campuses require that nearly all of the course lessons be uploaded. Immerblum expressed a concern about item number 2. Hernandez agreed the DE Committee should not be making recommendations on governance processes. Beaulieu replied initially the language said that the committee would deal with DE learning. We can address this by striking out: advising the college on its decision making regarding distance learning issues. McFall said the biggest complaint he gets is that Trade s DE Coordinator is doing too much work without being compensated. Gauthier replied the Board said they are committed to supporting IT and technology, as laid out in the District Strategic Plan. Brent asked about areas of mutual concern in Articles 32 and 33. Gauthier said there has been no movement in that area. He added we are close to opening the new contract; it was ratified late and will open up for negotiation in Beaulieu reported we did not get any support from ASCCC on this issue. They suggested that given the immediate climate, it might not be the best time to have a big fight with the union regarding shared governance. Beaulieu added that senates have been trying to work with the unions over the election and the passage of Proposition 30. Announcements ASCCC Leadership Summit: Freitas reported that the meeting on December 1, 2012 at City had people. They conducted a prioritization exercise on section cuts. There will be another session in the spring at Solano College. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 pm. 9