Academic Senate Meeting

November 4, 2004

Voting Members Present: (Senators) Donna Ayers, Terri English, Maria Fenyes,

 Pat Flood, Leslie Foster, Clive Gordon, Paul Kubicki, Eloise Cantrell, Stan Levine,

Vickie Oddino, Gary Prostak, Janice Silver

(Exec. Members) Angela Echeverri, Louise Barbato, Gwen Walker, Margie Long, Leslie Milke, Michael Climo, Dale Newman

Faculty Present: Deborah Paulson, Lorraine Manoogian, Said Pazirandeh, David Jordan,

Sonia Soto-Bair, Tricia Johnson, Cindy Cooper, Phoebe Rivera, Ralph LaRosa, John Klitzner,

 Lilamani De Silva, Myriam Mekelburg, Mark Pursley, Jeanne Cassara, Sandy Thomsen,

 Lee Risemberg, Suzanne Ritcheson, Quy Hoang, Ruthie Grant, Mehri Hagan, Joanne Kalter-Flink, Joyce Woodmansee, Bonnie Sherman, Sandi Lampert, Cecilia Chu-Ru Chan, June Wada

Guests Present: Elizabeth Saldivar, Student Trustee; Martha Soto, Dean of Academic Affairs; Bill Farmer, Vice President of Academic Affairs

Voting Members Absent: Rick Scuderi, Charles Dirks, John Orozco, and Roxanne Dalrymple

 

I.                    President Echeverri called the meeting to order at 1:41 p.m.

 

II.                Approval of Minutes  (MSC PROSTAK/KUBICKI) TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF

                             OCTOBER 7, 2004

 

III.               Officer’s Reports

A.     President, Angela Echeverri, handed out the following written report:

*************************************************************

 Follow-up on Prerequisites at Los Angeles Mission College

A spreadsheet containing LAMC courses with prerequisites and/or corequisites was e-mailed to all full-time faculty last month. Hard copies are available for those who need them. Please review all courses in your disciplines carefully for inaccuracies. Notify Academic Affairs and the Curriculum Committee immediately of any errors or changes that need to be made.

Prerequisites fall into three categories:

·        Prerequisites put in before Fall of 1994: These prerequisites have not been validated. They

      should not be enforced nor published in the schedule and catalog. If they are important for

      articulation and/or student success they must be validated and submitted to the Curriculum

     Committee ASAP.

·        Prerequisites put in after Fall of 1994 but not reviewed since Fall of 1998: These

      prerequisites have been validated, but have not been reviewed within the last six years.

      Faculty must indicate that these prerequisites are important for articulation and/or student

      success in order for them to be published in the Spring 2005 schedule. In order to remain

      in the schedule after Spring 2005, they must be updated by April of 2005.  If faculty indicate

       that the prerequisites are not necessary, they will be removed from schedule and catalog.

·        Prerequisites put in after Fall of 1998: These prerequisites have been validated and are current.

     They will be published in the Spring 2005 schedule and the catalog. All current prerequisites will

       be enforced.

Advanced Course Status: All courses with previous advanced status will remain as such for the

           Spring 2005 semester. In order to maintain advanced course status for Fall 2005,

         all prerequisites that have not been reviewed in the last six years must be updated by

         April 2005.

Challenge Procedure: The Curriculum Committee has developed and approved a formal challenge procedure for prerequisites and corequisites to be published in the catalog and schedule of classes.

 Consultation with the President

On Tuesday November 2nd, the AFT Chapter President Maria Fenyes and I met with Dr. Barrera, Bill Farmer, and Martha Soto. Items discussed included the following:

1.      The need for a more effective mechanism to link planning and budget at LAMC:

·        Lack of faculty input in budget development

·        The impact of fiscal cuts made by the administration on academic programs and enrollment:

o       Insufficient supply accounts for academic departments due to 75% reductions compared to last year.

o       LRC hours of operation and failure to meet noncredit enrollment targets

·        The effectiveness of our shared governance process:

o       Assessment & Planning and Resource Analysis Committees

o       Budget Task Force: Put together for this year only (12 members, 2 full time faculty).

2.      The future of the PACE program:

·       Retention, success, and enrollment of PACE students

·       Consultation with faculty and October resolution in support of PACE

3.      The fiscal deficit projected for the college in 2004-05:

·      LAMC is facing the largest projected deficit in the district ($1.5-$1.9 Million)

·       District estimates we will need to spend about $1.2 Million in additional course offerings in Winter/Spring/Summer I to meet our growth targets for 2004-05.

·       Budget task force: Administration is seeking ways to facilitate voluntary transfers, retirements, and workload reductions of classified staff to reduce projected deficit

4.      Enrollment management: Academic affairs decision to allocate additional 45 instructional hours/department for Winter/Spring 2005

·        Is this the best way to distribute offerings and meet our enrollment targets?

o       Increasing basic skills courses in Math, English, and Developmental Communications would bring additional revenue to the college

o       Academic departments different greatly in size and needs.

o       What courses do students need to graduate and meet their goals?

·        Council of Instruction could act as an enrollment management team.

·        Plan to meet noncredit FTES target is not clear.

5.      The effect of possible changes in graduation requirements:

·       Need for increased student support services (tutoring, computer labs, etc.)

·       Number of graduating students

·      Effect on vocational programs

Maria and I stressed the need for more consultation with faculty on all of these issues. PACE will remain as such in the Winter and Spring 2005. The President agreed to consultation with the Senate before any changes are implemented.

Academic Senate of California Community Colleges (ASCCC)

The Fall 2004 ASCCC Plenary Session took place in Newport Beach from October 28-30th. The most important developments centered around several resolutions that seek to increase the minimum Title 5 graduation requirements for Math and English (see attachment). The ASCCC published a paper on the Math and English requirements on 10/4/04, which I e-mailed to all full-time faculty. At the meeting, I pointed out that the paper has several inaccuracies. It incorrectly lists LAMC as having higher Math and English graduation requirements, and West as having higher Math requirements. Several colleges with higher requirements were omitted (e.g.: Antelope Valley and Santa Monica). The paper also lacks information on when the higher requirements went into effect, so there is no baseline information to assess the effect on degrees awarded by these colleges.

            Since our local Senate did not have a chance to discuss the issue or review the paper before our October meeting, I could not support making any resolutions to make changes to the current Title 5 minimum requirements. I argued in favor of a resolution to postpone a vote on changing the graduation requirements until the Spring of 2005. The resolution to postpone the vote was approved by a very narrow margin. In the LACCD, three colleges support increasing the requirements (West, East, and Pierce), the remaining colleges do not. However, based on the discussions at the session, it appears very likely that the graduation requirements will increase.

  District Budget Committee

LAMC did not meet its noncredit enrollment targets last year (2003-04). This resulted in a reduction in our 2004-2005 total estimated allocation, which will be $20,838,000 (see handout). Additionally, Fall 2004 credit enrollments are down about 5% when compared to last year. The district estimates that we will need to spend an additional $1.2 Million to overcome the declines experienced in the fall and to be able to reach our growth targets for 2004-2005. We also will have increased expenditures due to salary and health increases. As a result LAMC is projected to have a deficit that will range between $1.4 and $1.9 Million for this fiscal year.

Instructional Support Funds:

Block Grant Funds: $128,444 was allocated to LAMC based on our % of FTES

Scheduled Maintenance: $126,282 was allocated to LAMC. The district strongly encourages the colleges to use these funds for scheduled maintenance projects, which require a 50% match by the college. If this is not possible, the colleges may use these funds for instructional equipment.          

Academic Rank

Academic Rank Committee of the Senate is receiving applications for rank. Please submit your applications to Margie Long. 

Advanced Course Status:

The Office of Academic Affairs has accepted the advanced course policy approved by the Senate in October of 2004. All courses with 2 validated and current college level prerequisites qualify for advanced course status. These courses have lower enrollment requirements in order not to be cancelled (8 versus 15 students). Please obtain application form from Louise Barbato.

Grants

LAMC recently obtained two grants from the Department of Education:

Title 5 Grant for Hispanic Serving Institutions: Approximately $2.5 Million over 5 years

TRAILS Grant for Biotechnology: Approximately $350,000 over 3 years. Provides support to develop

 a transfer level Biotechnology course at LAMC (Biology 40). Funding includes paid several summer

 internships for LAMC students at CSUN and MannKind Corporation.

Decentralization of Faculty Hiring:

Yesterday LAMC hosted a workshop to review the major changes that will take place in the decentralization of faculty hiring. Louise Barbato will discuss workshop in her report.

Faculty Input in Prop A and AA Construction

The DAS President Leon Marzillier has requested information from LAMC faculty on whether they have had adequate input in Prop A and AA decisions. Please forward your comments to me.

Senate October Motions

PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE TO SENATE MOTIONS

November 3, 2004

 

      Motion #1

That the LAMC Academic Senate make a strong statement of support for the PACE program and for its Director Mark Pursley and that there be full consultation with the Academic Senate before a final decision is made with regard to the future of PACE.

Response: Mark Pursley has been informed that the PACE program will continue as it has up to the present.  I agree that there must be a broadly participatory and comprehensive discussion regarding the PACE program to include the Office of Academic Affairs and the Academic Senate.  This discussion must include such factors as student success and retention rates as well as relevant budgetary information.

             Motion #2

In light of the enrollment crisis, the Academic Senate moves to:

1.      Reinstate the high school outreach program under the auspices of the Counseling Department.

2.      Give schedule and catalog to all new students

3.      Offer classes at Local public high schools with the following conditions:

a.      Full approval of the department chairs in the planning, scheduling, and staffing of these classes

b.      Scheduling of these classes in compliance with LACCD Board rules, Title 5 regulations, and the California Education Code, thus ensuring that these classes are published in the college schedule and open to the public

 

Response: The high school outreach program remains under the auspices of the Counseling Department.  It is up to that department to determine what activities it may continue to conduct.  Any new student who attends an Orientation Workshop sponsored by the college will receive a free schedule of classes for the appropriate semester as well as a college catalog.  The Office of Academic Affairs will work with the department chairs to re-establish classes at local high schools in accordance with prevailing Board rules and state regulations.

 

Motion #3

To adopt the Advance Course Draft Present by Maria Fenyes

Response: The Office of Academic Affairs accepts the policy and procedure document as it was approved by the Academic Senate.

 

**************************************************************

1.      With regard to the president’s response to Motion #2, Clive Gordon stated that

      there was no way to do anything if there were no funds. It was decided to send

      the motion back to the president and ask her to answer the questions.

2.      Budget- According to the handout, a major chunk of the projected deficit was

     the increase in courses to meet our growth goals. It appears that Mission has the

     highest projected ending shortfall of any college in the District. Eloise Cantrell

     remarked that in 27 years, we have never had the worst deficit in the District.

 

B.     Vice President, Louise Barbato, handed out four documents.

1.      The first, the Advance course policy, was voted on by the senate last month and

      forwarded to the college president who accepted it. See above in the president’s report.

2.      The second, a Form to apply for advanced standing for a course, was presented

      and input was asked for by. Nov. 15 in order to vote on the form at the December

       senate meeting.

3.      The third, Moving disciplines-, was a draft prepared by Angela Echeverri and

      Maria Fenyes at the request of the college president.  Again input was sought

       so that a vote could take place in December.

4.      The final form the request draft for discipline moving, was also presented for input.

Barbato also informed us that because of the new faculty hiring policy and Board Rules, we

 need a new faculty hiring process document. Leslie Milke said that we had such a policy

approved here on campus. We will look for it.

 

C.     Treasurer  (Margie Long) The regular report was postponed for December. Long proposed

      a motion to raise the three faculty scholarship amounts from $100 each to $200 or $250

     starting this year.  (MILKE/KUBICK AMENDED BY FENYES)  THAT WE RAISE

     THE THREE FACULTY SCHOLARSHIPS FROM $100 TO $200 EACH TO

     BEGIN 2004-2005

 

           IV.   P ublic Address:

     A.   Paul Kubicki spoke out of concern over cutting the budget for advertising, tutoring, course

                                   offerings, and counseling outreach. He stated that management’s reason for the drastic cuts was

     that the college was over cap for credit enrollment and we would not get paid for the additional

     FTES. According to Kubicki, this was poor thinking on the part of management. as we are now

     below cap and must add classes Winter Spring and Summer. He added that the college should

     give away schedules and mail them out. Management needs to be more receptive to listening to

                              the faculty because they are the ones with the institutional memory.

                        B.  Jan Silver spoke on the progress on the proposed child development building. The plan was

                 for a State-funded, two-story building housing the child-care center and classrooms as well as

                 faculty offices. Architects were hired and the designs were approved, but when the bid went

                 out it came in at about $6 million rather that the funded $4.4 million. The bid was sent out again

last summer and  the lowest reply was $9 million, which is almost twice the State funding Child           development faulty and child development center people had a meeting with Karen Hoefel,

                                    District reps, and Prop A reps. They were left feeling that a decision was made to eliminate

                                    the second floor so that the child development center would go there but not the classes.

                                    A meeting was set up for next Tuesday with the president to discuss options. They were told

                                     that there was no firm decision yet. They might  ask  the State for an extension of the building

                                    time to find more funds, or they might ask to use  Prop A money. The latter would have a

                                    domino effect on the rest of the buildings.

   

                       V. Reports of Senate Committee Meetings

A.     Curriculum:

1.      Leslie Foster reported that there was a curriculum workshop on Tuesday, November 2.

      She handed out a checklist for writing an integrated course outline. A challenge procedure

      was developed as well as a memo for department chairs to develop their specific

      departmental challenges. Courses for UC transferability were submitted in September.

      We should be notified about approval or denial by early November.

2.      Foster distributed copies of the challenge policy proposed by the curriculum committee.

 An issue discussed was that there was no reference to an exam. Foster stated that a

 sentence referring to exams will be added at the end of the form. Another issue was that

 some wanted this to be a decision of the discipline. Gary Prostak wanted a lot more

 detail. Gwen Walker said that people could e-mail the counseling office with more

information.  Paul Kubicki  suggested that there be a sign in admission stating there was a challenge process and to see counseling for information. Concern was expressed over making the wording clear that individual Departments determine the criteria for challenges.  Consequently, it was agreed that an extra sentence should be added:  

"Criteria for challenging based on knowledge or ability to succeed will be determined by    each Academic Department."

  (MSC MILKE/FOSTER) TO APPROVE THE CHALLENGE POLICY.       

3.      A vote was held at the District Curriculum Committee to change “Skills Awards” on

      all campuses to “Skills Certificates.” E-65 was approved so that the changes align

      the guidelines for CSU general education with IGETC wording. SCIGETC was

      approved for the District.

B.     District Academic Senate: The December meeting will be held here at Mission on Thursday,

      December 9 at 12:30 in the main room of the campus center. On the agenda with be such topics

      as revising the election procedure, discussing goals the year, and discussing a policy to deal with

      student cheating.

C.     EPAC: The minutes of Tuesday, October 19 were circulated. EPAC recommended approval of

      the following draft language. “The DAS supports the right of students to petition to take

     a lower level course after a higher level course is completed. Each academic senate

     shall develop a policy and procedure for taking a lower level course after completing

     a higher level course. The petition shall include the rationale for taking the lower level

     course.” This will now go to the DAS general meeting in December. A Policy on student taking

     lower level course after more advanced courses in the same subject are passed was discussed.

     Another topic of discussion was courses in English speech and American institutions taken outside

     of the United States. They will address the C- grade at the next meeting. 

D.     Resource Analysis (Angela Echeverri): The committee met on October 27, 2004. The causes

      of the $1.4-1.9 million budget shortfall projected for 2004-05 was discussed extensively.

     The college received $128,444 in Block grant funds and $126,282 for scheduled maintenance

      projects. A proposal to use most of the Block grant funds to replace computers in the LRC

      was discussed and then tabled to allow faculty and department chairs to identify instructional

      equipment needs they might have. The committee will meet on Wednesday, November 10

      at 2:00 p.m. in the PFCR.

E.      Institutional Effectiveness (Mark Pursley) The committee met on October 28, 2004.

      Deborah Paulsen reported that the Art discipline had completed work on student learning

      outcomes for students receiving an AA in Art. John Cantley completed the drafts of the

      self-study for administrative units. (President’s Office; Academic Affairs; Administrative

      Services); for disciplines; student service units; and counseling. The committee will review

      these documents for the November 11 meeting. The committee approved changes to its

      charter. Those changes will be presented to the College Council in November. The next

      meeting is scheduled for November 11 from noon to 2:00 p.m. in CMPC 2.

 

VI.        Old Business

A.     Report on Senate motions to the College President: See Presidents written report above.

B.     Follow-Up on Prerequisites: See President's report above.

C.     Academic Rank for Part-Time Faculty. Part-Time faculty member, Jeanne Cassara

      submitted a proposal for adjunct faculty to be given the rank of Adjunct Assistant Professor.

      (MSC MILKE/LONG) TO APPROVE ACADEMIC RANK FOR ADJUNCTS

 

     VII.   New Business

     A.   Use of Block Grant Funds— At the Resource Analysis meeting, Vice President Karen Hoefel suggested using most of the $128,444 in instructional equipment, Block grant funds to replace the remaining computers in LRC. This was delayed so that committee members could discuss it with faculty. Do faculty have other needs? Eloise Cantrell reported that it was upsetting that computer science had 10-year-old computers. Leslie Milke stated that department chairs should be asked for proposals. Last year there was a process to distribute $200,000 of Block grant funds to departments based on proposals. Leslie suggested that we use same process this year. (MSC FENYES/MILKE)  MOVE TO ESTABLISH AN “INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT COMMITTEE” (IEC) THAT WILL OPERATE UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE AND THE COUNCIL OF INSTRUCTION. THE COMMITTEE SHALL BE CHARGED WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF 2004 – 2005 INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT FUNDS TO INSTRUCTIONAL DEPARTMENTS. THE INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT COMMITTEE SHALL BE COMPOSED OF AT LEAST FIVE FULL TIME REGULAR FACULTY MEMBERS, THREE OF WHOM SHALL BE DEPARTMENT CHAIRS. THE COMMITTEE SHALL BE RENEWED EVERY ACADEMIC YEAR.

           B.     Faculty Replacement: Hiring- Since the president has the authority to decide which, if any

      Positions are replaced, the senate should inquire which ones she intended to fill. Sandy Thomson

      suggested that we ask the president to rely on or work with the faculty hiring committee on

      replacements. Then, as the District is falling below the 75/25, find out if new positions are to be

      created.

C.  Function of Technical Review: There was some confusion as to the exact function of technical

review on courses and updates. Course content should not be corrected in this process.

Maria Fenyes expressed concern over chemistry lab content. Leslie Foster assured her that

technical review was about form and not content.

            D.     Math/English Graduation Requirements: President Echeverri handed out documents including

                                    resolutions from the Fall ASCCC plenary session dealing with raising the graduation

requirements in math and English. We need to come up with a position here at Mission.

Maria Fenyes suggested a forum in the Spring. This will probably come to a vote at the

Spring plenary session and will involve recommendations for changes in Title 5.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.

Submitted by Dale Newman, Secretary