There was a motion on the floor to move J3 and create an item under F for more discussion. It was seconded by Beville and Adjunct Faculty. The motion was approved.
FA Report: There is a general meeting tomorrow at noon, lunch will be provided.
Adjunct Faculty Report: Adjust Faculty had a meeting. They are still in process of conducting and collecting a survey.
Classified Senate Report: The Classified Senate approved AP7160 for Professional Development. They are working with the Professional Development Subcommittee to streamline Classified Senate applications. They will be having a general Fall meeting on Halloween. They will be asking for donations for the Lancer Pantry.
Associated Students apologized for not attending prior meetings. They went on the California Community Colleges Students Association Retreat for professional development and leadership over the weekend. They are pushing for networking with professors and other school leaders. Another retreat with the Child Development Center is in the works.
New item F: The Academic Senate passed a copy of version of supported (not approved) by the Senate regarding the selection of division chairs on the hiring committees, in negotiations between the Faculty Association and Administration. The talks have fallen apart. A prior proposal included an election system versus appointments. They need to discuss a new direction to take.
Members on the Academic Senate voiced exasperation: they thought it was already handled, and discussed it in several meetings, and then their proposal was outright rejected.
It was pointed out that there is a legal distinction between supporting the proposal and officially approving it. Beville of Adjunct Faculty wants input, having previously been voted against and excluded from discussion last year.
The current process involves two managers and two faculty members. The proposal is now two managers and three faculty members,with one faculty chosen by division, one by the dean, and two faculty members choose a member outside of the division for the third.
Matt Henes suggested that they form a counter reply, seeing no point in inviting them just to have them repeat the explanation on the sheet, but various members of the Academic Senate expressed caution against formulating anything before hearing an explanation.
There was a motion to invite Dr. Giugni and Dr. Vurdien to the next meeting for an explanation as to why their proposal was rejected. The motion was approved.
Adjunct Faculty wishes to add their involvement to motion. They were asked to be more specific. Adjunct Faculty reiterates their desire to be involved in the process of selecting chairs. There was some approval and some disapproval expressed. Clarified that this means Adjunct Faculty members can be appointed to the third faculty member chair. Julie Kiotas/Social Sciences disagrees and doesn’t want to start a fight with the Dean in lieu of everything else – Melissa Michelson/Languages agrees with the sentiment. This motion was denied.
There was a motion to require Dr. Giugni and Dr. Vurdien to provide a document outlining what they want. The motion was approved.
Clarification that an e-mail sent out to various members was not sent by the Academic Senate. (This comes up again later).
Equity +1 Study Powerpoint by Shelagh Rose and study group session was extended by ten minutes. There was discussion about whether or not Equity +1 should include faculty. Beville suggested to hire more African-American. Melissa supported, and wanted Equity +1 to include both students and faculty. Other members expressed their fear of losing focus on students, which is the program’s intended purpose.
“Add faculty” is put to a vote. It was rejected.
New Mission Statement was presented by Crystal Kollross. Seven versions of the new mission statement were presented, each with slightly different phrasing. The seventh version was approved after “comprehensive” is removed after much debate on whether or not the programs are truly comprehensive.
There was a discussion about faculty list and procedure for campus-wide hiring committees. Methods have not worked since its inception: faculty is not responding to requests for help via e-mail, and this goes beyond faculty not being EEO trained. Beville expressed a desire for more Adjunct Faculty involvement. The discussion was ultimately tabled for next meeting.
The Ad Hoc Academic Honors Distinction Committee was dissolved.
There was a discussion about reclassifying the Ad Hoc Hiring Issues Committee. They discussed whether or not they should be changed to a standing or an operational committee. It was tabled until the next meeting.
Change Charge of Distance Education Committee was discussed. Minor language adjustment and new goals were approved.
There was a discussion of the Ad Hoc Reassigned Time Committee. They were the committee that sent the group e-mail; during the discussion Matt Henes declared the e-mail sent to Academic Senate members was a violation of the Brown Act and the e-mail group should be dissolved. Committee members insist that it was out of a desire to better inform the Senate rather than sway votes for any motions they proposed, and it was public information. It was pointed out that the official procedure for distribution of information is through the packet routinely handed out, and it is a concern. The Academic Senate agreed to take their word that they will disband the group. It was tabled for next meeting.
Jennifer is the Opinions Editor at the Courier. She is majoring in Journalism and has a passion for writing about politics and political science. In her spare time she enjoys (poorly) playing strategy games on her PC, tweeting and re-tweeting snark on Twitter, and reading the latest news out of Washington.