When Is News not News? When It's Business as Usual

In our last post, we told you about some shady dealings on the part of Governing Board incumbents. Now there's more.

We've just learned that the Southwestern College district itself sent out a mailer promoting the Board and downplaying accreditation problems.

How did they do this? By packaging the propaganda as "news."

This 8 1/2 X 11 inch mailer on glossy card stock pretends to be "News from Southwestern College," but its timing--right before the election--couldn't be more transparent. (Besides, honestly, if you wanted to send apolitical information to the community, would you choose to do so at the very moment people's mailboxes are overflowing with campaign literature? We think not.)

While not mentioning candidates by name, the mailer refers glowingly to the current Governing Board no fewer than eight times, once in bold red font.

Twice (once on each side), the mailer claims that accreditation problems date from 1996 and 2003 ("Southwestern College is currently resolving issues from previous WASC reports in 1996 and 2003")--a story the incumbents have been promoting throughout their campaigns, especially as a way to discredit former Superintendent/President Norma Hernandez, who is running against Yolanda Salcido for Seat #4.

The truth, of course, is that this Board and Superintendent/President Raj Chopra are responsible for the college's probationary accreditation status, as we've been documenting on this blog for over a year.

So what does it cost to manufacture this kind of spin? According to the label, these mailers went out ECRWSS (Enhanced Carrier Route Walking Sequence Saturation), which in US Postal Service lingo means the mailing had to go to every address on the route.


Assuming the district sent only to addresses in Chula Vista, National City, Imperial Beach, Bonita, and Coronado (skipping outlying areas like San Ysidro and Otay Mesa), that amounts to at least 100,000 households (and we're not even counting the business addresses on those routes). At the non-profit ECRWSS mailing rate of 11 cents per, the mailing cost alone comes to $11,000. And we haven't even included the cost of the mailer itself yet!

Even if we assume an incredibly modest 10 cents for each mailer, that brings the grand total to over $20,000.

And guess who paid for it, folks. Yep, that would be you, the taxpayer.

In case you didn't receive a copy in the mail, you can see the scanned mailer here:
Side 1
Side 2

Feels Like Old Times

It was just one year ago that the Save Our Southwestern College blog got its start. The issues at the time: ham-handed administration, threats to freedom of speech, accreditation headed for the rocks.

My, how things haven't changed.



One of our first posts linked to a News 10 story:
College President Accused Of Targeting School Paper

Sounds familiar, don't it?

Posted the same day was a set of links to coverage from The Sun documenting problems with Raj Chopra's management going back to March of 2009:
If No News Is Good News . . .

After that came a series of posts documenting the efforts of people on the ground--faculty, staff, and students--to get the college back on track. In October 2009, nine documents were posted, including a copy of the Academic Senate's Vote of No Confidence in Raj Chopra and materials explaining the importance of Shared Governance (a key area that the Accrediting Commission later found lacking).

Also posted in October '09 were alternatives to the 25% class cuts, a timeline documenting issues with adversarial leadership, other cost-saving suggestions, and the first Governing Board meeting protest, including transcripts of some of the speeches.

But wait! There's more--much more, and if you care to take a deja vu walk down memory lane, just start back in September 2009 and work your way forward. It's a lot of reading, but a lot has been going on for quite some time.

Southwestern's issues (and this blog) didn't start with the teachers' suspensions. That event merely put both the college and the blog on the map. The people who care, the people who know, the people who work in the midst of mismanagement, greed, ignorance, ineptitude, and spite (to name just a few oughta-be deadly sins) have been trying to spread the word, trying to Save Our Southwestern College.

Will you help them? More importantly, will you help the thousands of students who depend on SWC for their education?

Please visit the sites of the candidates currently running against Board incumbents. Please contribute. (See left sidebar.)

Meanwhile, here's the roll call of press pieces on the most recent free speech mess at SWC:

Sun Under Attack (from the SWC Sun)

Southwestern College Bars Student Paper from Printing (from the Huffington Post)

College Newspaper Threatened by Contract Policy (from SignonSanDiego)

Students Claim Administrators Looking to Shut Down Newspaper (from 10 News)

Southwestern College Halts Publication of Student Newspaper (from The Chronicle of Higher Education)

Student Journalists Say College Trying to Squelch Them (from Inside Higher Education)

Now is the time for change. Es tiempo de cambiar. What will you do to make it happen?

Are You Listening, SWC Board and Admin?

While the SWC public relations machine churns out its own good-news press releases, here are some news items it's bound to overlook.

Cited in this post:

• From the Chronicle of Higher Education, "Great Colleges to Work For: At Wake Tech Community College, Employees Know Their Voices Will Be Heard" and "Honor Roll"
• From the San Diego Union-Tribune, "College District Adding Classes: One-time Sources Tapped For Funding"
  

Pat Flynn, writing for the San Diego Union Tribune reports that "the San Diego Community College District is reversing a two-year trend of class reductions and adding 1,150 classes" for the upcoming Fall term. The district includes City College, Mesa College, and Miramar College.

The classes are being funded by reserve savings. District Chancellor Constance Carroll points out the funds could have been left in the reserve, but "our board, all of us, think this is the best thing to do with double-digit unemployment . . . and all the students who can't get into SDSU because of their budget cuts."

We applaud this decision by the San Diego Community College District Board and Chancellor Carroll. SWC, are you listening?

Similar class savings could have been realized at SWC if only the board and Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra had listened to faculty, staff, students, and community members over two years ago, when concerns about institutional organization, budget decisions, and governance issues were first raised. (This blog, in fact, was started as a way to catalog and communicate these concerns to the larger community.)

Instead Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra and Governing Board members, in particular current president Yolanda Salicido and former president Terri Valladolid, have continued down a path of top-down management that has led to dismaying results, including record-breaking class cuts, national notoriety for civil rights violations, and threatened loss of accreditation.

Compare the governance of SWC to that of Wake Tech Community College, which was recently singled out in a Chronicle of Higher Education report, "Great Colleges to Work For." According to The Chronicle, North Carolina's Wake Tech stands out as "a college where faculty and staff members say they can openly discuss job issues and concerns with administrators." Much of the credit goes to Wake Tech president Stephen C. Scott, who made openness and a culture of collaboration priorities from the beginning. The result is a climate of trust and rapport between administration, faculty, and staff, where everyone works together to resolve problems.

It should come as no surprise, then, that 30 of 39 Great Colleges cited "Collaborative Governance" as the top reason making their college "great." (Also frequently mentioned by these model colleges were "Respect and Appreciation" and "Confidence in Senior Leadership.")

In contrast, according to the WASC action letter notifying SWC of its probationary status, the college falls seriously short in this area: "The team recommends that the college set as a priority fostering an environment of trust and respect for all employees and students that allows the college community to promote administrative stability and to work together for the good of the college. The team further recommends that the college establish a written process and structure providing faculty, staff, administrators, and students a substantial voice in decision-making processes."

SWC, are you listening?

---

Further reading from this blog:

Southwestern College on Probation
A Note to Students and the Community

Read All About It!

A new edition of the Southwestern College Sun is out, full of timely updates as well as head-scratching news.



Here are some of our favorites:


Hernandez, Nader, Thompson set to run: The article announces a slate of challengers for this November's Governing Board election. Former SWC Superintendent/President Norma Hernandez, former Chula Vista mayor Tim Nader, and sitting Chula Vista City Council member Mitch Thompson will be running against current board members Yolanda Salcido and Terri Valladolid. (Jorge Dominguez holds the third seat but says he won't be running again.)

No word yet on what the match-up will be, but the SCEA faculty union has endorsed the candidates and pledged PAC funding in support. Stay tuned for more news on fundraising opportunities.

Union says college is running up a surplus: Why did the college cancel 429 class sections this Spring and turn away thousands of students while it had millions in the bank? Faculty union president Phil Lopez continues to question the Board on this urgent issue.

Committees to attack probation: In a report describing the college's efforts to meet accreditation goals, Governing Board President Yolanda Salcido mysteriously blames staff on the ground for the college's problems: "There have been a lot of different board members. . . . There have been a lot of presidents. There have been a lot of administrations, but what's been here consistent is the staff and the management as well as the managers who actually do the running of the district."

Apparently, Salcido missed the part of the accreditation report that said all those folks were doing a fine job while problems clearly originated higher up the food chain. Further, Salcido denies any responsibility on the part of the board: "It's beyond what we can do up here."

We're not sure where "up here" is but suggest Salcido take a look at 7 Things Never to Say to Your Boss. And yes, Yoli, we the voters are your boss.

Finally, not reported in The Sun but definitely of note is the Continuing Revolving Door at SWC:

At a time when Southwestern College must meet multiple areas of improvement by conducting pivotal research and providing the data for the October Accreditation deadline, our Dean of Research, Evaluation, and Planning was suddenly fired by the Governing Board on March 10 with no explanation to faculty and staff.

Faculty and staff are diligently working to meet the additional workload of the Accreditation requirements and have literally had the rug pulled out from under them.

Every college must have a functioning research office to meet the demands of accreditation. Our faculty and staff have been struggling to meet Accreditation demands with no Office of Research for the last 5 years, and we once again have none.

Throughout Dr. Chopra’s first year, when he was still willing to meet with faculty, we requested that the re-establishment of a research office be a priority as it is critical for Accreditation.

He did not replace our Director of Research; instead during one of his two major reorganizations in a year, Dr. Chopra elevated the position to a Dean and added many additional non-research responsibilities. It is an undoable job now.

The current Dean had just started in Nov. last fall. It's unclear what could have happened so egregious it was worth endangering yet again our Accreditation status, but we need this key position for Accreditation here now, and an improvement plan with prioritization of tasks based on Accreditation would have made a lot more sense. What is the plan now for the research we must have by Oct. 2010?

The Sun Shines, and March 4th March

First, the March (tomorrow, Thursday afternoon):

All across the state, students, teachers, classified professionals, and administrators will be rallying on March 4 to protest cuts to California's education budget. Locally, Southwestern College faculty, staff, students, and community members will be participating in a rally in Balboa Park. We invite--and urge--you to join us!

Event: Rally at the Balboa Park Centro Cultural de La Raza [2004 Park Blvd.] and March to the Governor’s Office in San Diego on March 4th at 3:00 pm.

• Meet with students and teachers from all across San Diego regarding state budget decisions that affect education.

• Get involved in a public action to show our legislators that students and teachers matter—we ARE the future!

• Learn what you can do to better California public education.

Second, even with its funding frozen by a vindictive administration, The Sun rises still!

This installment (available online and in print) features several pieces on SWC's accreditation issues, including a scathing editorial on the administration's role in the problem. Please read, share, and comment to show your support for our tireless Sun reporters and their advisor!

Letters to the Editor

This month, two Southwestern College teachers and community members published letters in the San Diego Union-Tribune. Read on:

Friday, February 19, 2010 at 12:04 a.m.

Southwestern vibrant, despite probation

It is of great concern and regret that the only institution of higher education in South County has, for the first time in its nearly 50-year history, been placed on probation by the accrediting commission for community colleges. The findings and recommendations by the WASC team can be viewed in their entirety at swccd.edu.

No doubt this probationary status was imposed because eight of 10 previous recommendations made in the 2003 visit still had not been completely satisfied by WASC’s October 2009 visit. Upon review of the report, readers will determine that the primary findings are due to administrative shortcomings and ongoing problems with governance.

However, what the report does state clearly is that, “A sense of vibrancy and student engagement pervades the college, and faculty and staff are clearly dedicated to students and to providing a supportive environment for learning to occur.” It further states, “Turnover in administration has caused middle managers and faculty to take responsibility for the continuity of the day-to-day activities of the college. Staff loyalty and the evident engagement of student in the life of the college have sustained the college through its difficulties.”

As a dedicated and proud employee of Southwestern College, I want to assure the South County that we will continue to work very hard and passionately to provide excellent programs and services to our students.

As a member of this community, I encourage you to exercise your right to determine (at the coming 2010 governing board elections) who will best serve the interests of our much more deserving students and community.

NORMA CAZARES

Chula Vista

---

Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 12:04 a.m.

Accreditation review is serious business

In October, four Southwestern College faculty were suspended after a rally protesting unwarranted class cuts. An administrator was sent with armed police to the home of each instructor to do this. I was one of the instructors. This dictatorial act and countless others have given cause for our college to earn a probationary status.

I was banned 14 days from teaching, from campus and from college e-mail. I could not communicate to my students what had happened.

Regrettably, all our efforts to work collegially with our governing board and president have been summarily dismissed. We at Southwestern College want our college back.

DINORAH GUADIANA-COSTA

San Diego

A Note to Students and the Community

Dear Students and Community Members:

My name is Patti Flores-Charter, and I have been a faculty member at Southwestern College since 1992. I am also a member of the faculty Academic Senate and Senate Executive Committee.

The SWC Accreditation Report raises many questions. This note is to

• Give you enough information to understand what is happening at our college with accreditation.


• Help you feel confident and calm about the safety of the classes in which you are now enrolled.

I will include what I know about the accreditation process and my experiences from participating in the last three accreditations at SWC, including this one. I think that will help you understand why our college was placed on probation and how we got here. You have chosen to be a college student because you know that knowledge is power. So I will work here to give you the knowledge needed to be in control of the information about what is happening to our College.

1. Classes are safe: All current and past classes at SWC remain accredited; nothing has changed. We have not lost accreditation. Classes will transfer, count for an associate’s degrees, for certificates, licensure, work requirements, etc. Please don’t worry.
   
   
2. You’re right, accreditation is critical. It is a federal process organized by geographic area. Each area has an official office that oversees each college’s accreditation. Our office is in Northern California. Here is the website for more information: http://www.accjc.org/
   
   
3. College Standards are set by the accreditation system for every aspect of a college from curriculum (what is taught, how it is graded, etc.), hiring practices, campus policies, to financial aid and tutoring, etc.


4. Possible Accreditation Outcomes: After the site visit, all evidence is reviewed by the Accrediting Office with a decision made about accreditation and provided in a final report. Outcomes may include:
   
   
   
   1. Re-accredited, nothing changes. In the past we have always been reaccredited with accommodations and recommendations for improvement made. This was normal for our college.
   
   
   2. Warning: This identifies that improvements are needed and specifies those. A timeline is given (usually a year or more) with a report due on progress. No site visit.
   
   
   3. Probation: This is what SWC received, and it means that improvements must be made, specifying both improvements and a timeline. This is a serious level of what is called a “sanction”. We must improve by the timeline or risk getting the next level of sanction, Show Cause.
   
   
   4. Show Cause: At this level, the college is a step away from losing accreditation. The college must prove that it should not lose accreditation.
   
   
   5. Accreditation withdrawn
   
   
   Problem Areas Identified in the Report
   


1. Dismantling of Shared Governance: Our community colleges have state law that requires the administration and governing board to listen to facultyinput. This is called Shared Governance. This has not happened, so it is an area that must improve.
   


2. No Office of Research: Accreditation requires hard data on critical college functions, so every college must have an Office of Research. We have not had one since former President Norma Hernandez was in charge. Thus we could not get the research we needed for the SLO requirements, Academic Program Review, and many Curriculum tasks. This is an area that must improve.
   

   Here is a list of other areas affected by the lack of Shared Governance to date: This Governing Board has approved Dr. Chopra’s dismantling of
   

   
   
   1. Office of Research
      
   2. Office of Instruction
      
   3. Office of Business and Fiscal Affairs
      
   4. Office of Human Resources
      
   5. Financial Aid Office
      
   6. Office of Admission
      
   7. Performing Arts Program
      
   8. Student Newspaper
      
   9. Outreach Office
      
   10. SWC Foundation
       
   11. Grant Writing Program (at a time when everyone is writing grants)
   
   

So What Do We Do?

For our college to recover, our Governing Board, President, and Vice-Presidents would have to establish a working environment of mutual respect. On campus we all need to be interested in working together in an environment of mutual trust and collaboration as our federal and state legislatures require. To date the President and voting majority has refused all input from our faculty at every Governing Board meeting since Norma Hernandez's departure. We went to the extreme measure of Votes of No Confidence, first in our College President last April 2009 and finally of our Governing Board. Typically, after a vote of No Confidence, a College President will resign soon afterward or the Governing Board will take action. Colleges don’t function under conditions of “No Confidence.” In reality, with our No Confidence Vote the faculty requested that the Board intercede and help us establish a relationship of mutual trust with our President. We were summarily ignored, which led to the No Confidence in the Board.

Only Board Members Nick Aguilar and Jorge Dominguez have listened and tried to intervene. But they are only a minority vote. We have been working in a triage environment under this Board, reacting to one poorly informed decision after another.

Keep in mind there never has been a fiscal crisis at our college. Fiscal reports filed each year with our state Chancellor’s Office have shown this. There was no college to rescue from the brink of fiscal bankruptcy unless those reports were filed erroneously.

There is Good News: We have amazing faculty, classified staff, directors, and deans who understand how an award winning college must operate, because we are one despite our treatment under this current administrative regime. We can get back to where we were, but we need your help NOW.

1. Contact your Governing Board Members of SWC and College President today and demand the change we must have in leadership. Use your voice and be heard.
   


2. Write to the Union Tribune and Chula Vista Star about our needs.


3. Stay informed and vote in the coming Nov. 2010 election when three Governing Board seats are up for election.


4. Read more from our SaveOurSWC.blogspot.com.
   
   

Sun Shines on the Voice

SWC Sun reporters Sean Campbell and Lyndsey Winkley guest at The Voice of San Diego!

Their article presents a cogent overview of Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra's behavior and campus conflicts leading up to recent issues with the college's accreditation: Southwestern College Pushed to the Brink by Brutal Power Struggle

Congratulations, Sean and Lyndsey! Thank you, Voice, for finally listening!

Meanwhile, you might be wondering why we haven't posted links to any of the other news pieces out there. So far, we've found a lot of misinformation and sloppy reading of the accreditation report. You can expect a post with links once we've composed a debriefing.

A couple points to keep in mind:

First, the college is in trouble--yes. We here at Save Our Southwestern have been saying this since before the accreditation report came out, before the free speech and faculty suspension disaster. If you'd like to see the documentation, just look back at the original posts made on this blog.

Folks at the college have been saying it (and trying to get the attention of WASC--the accrediting agency) since the Board forced Ron S. Dyste (friend of then-GB member David Agosto) on the college as Vice President of Academic Affairs, leading a popular and collaborative president, Norma Hernandez, to resign.

Most importantly, the college will survive. Administrators and board members come and go, but the heart of SWC will beat on. The real work of the college is done on the ground by the many full- and part-time staff (classified, faculty, and hourly). We're here; the college is here. Please support us and Save Our Southwestern College.

Southwestern College on Probation

The just-released accreditation report from the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) reveals that Southwestern College has been placed "on probation" for ten different violations of educational standards.

ACCJC is a sub-group of WASC, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, one of six regional associations that accredit public and private schools, colleges, and universities in the U.S.

For any educational institution, accreditation is essential. It ensures government funding, the availability of financial aid for students, and the transferability of courses. More importantly, accreditation serves as quality control, assuring the public that an educational institution is sound.

Loss of accreditation is rare, and the process of losing accreditation has several levels and steps. The first is "warning." The second is "probation," which applies to SWC. In this case, the college will have until this October to address five of the issues and until May 2011 to address the rest. For a summary of the areas needing improvement, see the ACCJC Action Letter.

The college held the first of several planned "Town Hall" meetings this evening at 5:00. While we're not sure what a town hall meeting entails, this certainly felt more like a press conference. Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra spoke briefly and optimistically about how the report represents an "opportunity" and how "the glass is half full." Academic Senate President Valerie Goodwin-Colbert was more forthcoming about how the college's own self-study had identified problem areas, though she also stressed a positive "let's do this" approach.

Dean of Instructional Support Services, Mink Stavenga (as newly-appointed accreditation liaison), then took center stage and fielded most of the audience's (often pointed) questions.

There will be additional "Town Hall" meetings on both the main and satellite campuses:

The next scheduled forum on the Chula Vista campus will take place

Thursday, February 4, 2010 from 11:00 a.m. to noon

Student Union East (Cafeteria)

Additional meetings will be held at the Higher Education Centers as follows:

National City: Wednesday, February 3, 2010 1:00 p.m.

San Ysidro: Thursday, February 4, 2010 8:30 a.m.

Otay Mesa: Friday, February 5, 2010 8:30 a.m.

Accreditation News: Town Hall Meeting Tonight

Late yesterday, Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra issued a memo announcing that the college has received the much-anticipated report from the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges.

The college has not yet publicly posted the accreditation report, but a "Town Hall" meeting has been scheduled to discuss the results. The meeting will be held at 5:00 p.m. today on the main campus in Room L238 N&S (across from the library).

In other news, the Governing Board took no action at its recent special meeting to evaluate Chopra. Meanwhile, an online survey (see previous post) has gone out to all faculty.

Stay tuned!

What Led Us to Here

A Timeline Documenting Adversarial Leadership Style/Lack of Cooperation/Interference

ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW

Nov. 2004: Martha Graham, Director of Research, suddenly announces retirement in March 05, takes a medical leave, and does not return. She recommends Analyst Brandon Aneiri to take her place at our Academic Program Review meetings. Academic Program Review (APR) goes smoothly despite the loss.

Fall 2005-Spring 2006: APR Committee reviews and streamlines APR process and takes it through consultation for input from Academic Senate, Deans, at each School Meeting, and Department Chairs. Cycle is shortened to review every 3 years with annual review of Summary Work Plan. SLOs are added to Component V as a whole Criterion 1 with annual review integrated. Process is adopted with unanimous support. (Please note that clerical support for this was requested and not provided.)

New design for “snapshot” of research data is designed by Brandon and piloted for review through consultation again and unanimously approved. The goal is to program the data for annual production for each program on campus.

Fall 2006: New Chair, Veronica Burton, of APR starts two-year tenure for Senate.

Spring 2006-Fall 2006: College denies programming by Brandon. After months of requests, programming is finally approved.

New Director of Research, Darlene Cole, is hired and starts Fall 2006. This results in disruption of APR data such that no APRs can occur in 06-07 or 07-08 due to the lack of data. Darlene Cole resigns in Feb. 2007 and is hired as a private consultant for Fall 2007 start. APR Committee is uninformed of resignation until May 2007 meeting despite numerous requests by Ms. Burton for information.

Fall 2007: Despite hiring as a private consultant, Ms. Cole produces no useable data for 07-08. Some programs go forward with APR with no data; others wait.

Aug. 2007: Ms. Burton resigns as APR Chair in protest over Vice President of Academic Affairs Dyste’s actions surrounding APR. An emergency election by Senate takes place and Richard Fielding is elected to a one-year term.

Fall 2007-Spring 2008 and Fall 2008-Spring 2009: Ms. Cole’s company, CoBro produces APR data characterized by delays, changes to definitions with no consultation, and confusion and frustration by programs and their deans. Repeated requests are made by our Senate President for the hiring of an “in-house” Director of Research with no action taken.

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

2003-2005: Please refer to SLO History and Plan for details.

Fall 2005-Spring 2007: No action is taken on development of SLOs due to disruption of all college Senate committees by instability in administration. Much interference and pressure by certain members of the Governing Board in Senate work prevented forward progress here, including policy approvals.

This culminated with the resignation of President Norma Hernandez at the end of Spring 2006 over the appointment by the Governing Board of Ron Dyste as Vice-President of Academic Affairs. Ron Dyste was/is a personal friend and colleague of then Governing Board member David Agosto. Mr. Dyste’s experience is only in Student Services as is Mr. Agosto’s. Greg Sandoval serves as interim President in Summer 2006 until Dr. Yoneji is formally appointed as interim in Aug. 2006. By Feb. 2007 Dr. Yoneji is fired by the Governing Board. Dr. Chopra is hired and begins Fall 2007.

Fall 2007-Spring 2008: The SLO Coordinator, Alma Aguilar, goes out on medical leave for the rest of the year. Patti Flores-Charter is asked to step in as SLO Coordinator at the end of October. She receives no release time. Despite her requests to attend CCC and ACCJC sponsored trainings, Mr. Dyste refuses.

Fall 2007: A new SLO Committee is formed with decisions made quickly on use of CurriCUNET, SLOs as addendum to Course Outlines, and Spring 2008 Opening Day planned to begin implementation of writing phase of SLOs.

Spring 2008: Opening Day focus is on SLOs, and writing of SLOs begins in School meetings with SLO Committee support. Goal is implementation in Fall 2008 with assessment at the end of Fall 2008.

By Feb. the VP of Human Resources is fired, VP of Fiscal resigns, and Mr. Dyste resigns. Dr. Chopra takes on roles to save money. Chaos ensues.

Trainings and support for writing course SLOs is provided formally via Staff Development and one-on-one trainings. SLO Committee begins work on organization of Program SLOs and SLO web site. SLO Liaisons are identified by program with communication structured from the SLO Committee to the Liaisons to the program faculty. The system works.

Fall 2008: Course SLOs are implemented and continue to be written. Program SLO plan goes out for consultation and is adopted unanimously. Work with web team occurs and SLO web test-site is erected. Writing by the SLO Chair of documents occurs with review by SLO Committee members. To support assessment of SLOs and posting of aggregate results, eLumen is adopted.

Because we had no Research Office, SLO committee requests that faculty collect informal data for possible use once we have an office. No support exists for quality development of assessment measures or for data collection.

Spring 2009: February meetings held with web team and Eva Hedger, new Supervisor in Office of Instruction and of CurriCUNET. Plan is to go live with SLO web site until web developer Eli Singh is fired via a campus-wide reorganization the end of February. College stops all web site work in Spring and Summer.

ASSESSMENT OF SLOs

January 2009: eLumen is to go live. Faculty volunteers are excited and ready to beta test. This is delayed by CSS.

April 2009: eLumen is to go live; however, by May eLumen test site is still not live. Serious problems with computing persist on campus.

Fall 2009: New Dean over Research, Evaluation and Planning is finally hired. Our SLO Committee is guardedly optimistic that we will be able to make solid and quick progress on our SLO assessment requirements now.

Additional continuing concerns about college:

Budget lacks short or long-term plan and no process for quick collaborative action as conditions change:

1) Poor planning and management of long-term funding for operational costs of Centers. Very low enrollment at Otay is causing danger of cuts to state funding.

2) Last minute directives to cut large percentages of classes as stop-gap solutions to the lack of planning. Last year cuts of course sections included 10% in Fall with another 5% shortly thereafter.

3) SWC Associated Students Organization (ASO) president and senators worked through the weekend of Sept. 23/24 and put together a 14-page document detailing alternative options to cutting classes as this causes direct problems for students finishing degrees, certificates and transfer requirements in a timely and cost effective way. On Wed., Sept. 30 this group of students worked all night on another document in response to this latest round of course cuts.

4) Two weeks ago right before our Spring 2010 class schedule should be going to print and getting posted online, our Department Chairs were told to make another quick round of larger cuts to our Spring offerings. This delays student access to the schedule of classes for planning with Spring registration just a month away.

5) Accreditation site visit begins Monday, Oct. 5. This process was flawed continuously by Dr. Chopra’s and the Governing Board’s lack of participation with our campus Accreditation Committee.

Here are two of numerous examples of what became a time-consuming and stress-filled preparation process for writing our Accreditation Report and preparation for our site visit:

• This process includes a two-year self-study process (Fa 07-Sp 09) in which a committee is formed and in the first year of the self-study is required to interview and gather a "culture of evidence" responding to the requirements of 4 Accreditation Standards. Dr. Chopra and the Governing Board refused to work directly with our committee for Part 2 of Standard IV requirements on Leadership and Governance, despite a year spent (Fa 07-Sp-08) trying to schedule interviews and gather information as required.

• The first year of the self-study we only had two faculty chairs leading and organizing the process as the administrator (Dyste) designated by the President did not attend meetings or participate. He resigned in Spring 2008.
  
  Instead documents for Part 2 of Standard IV were prepared unilaterally by the President's Office with no communication and brought to the Accreditation Chairs in Fall 2008 for inclusion in the written report. This lack of cooperation and collaboration is unheard of in the Accreditation process.

Fall 2009: A blog, Save Our Southwestern College, is created as an opportunity to inform our community about what is happening at our college.

3. Academic Senate Resolution: Shared Governance, March 2008 in response to first Reorganization of campus

SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE ACADEMIC SENATE


SHARED GOVERNANCE/COLLEGIAL CONSULTATION RESOLUTION BACKGROUND: The Academic Senate is committed to working collegially with the Governing Board, Superintendent/President, and campus administrators in following policies and procedures. Our last Accreditation identified key areas for improvement of Shared Governance in planning and budget development. In the last six years our campus has experienced problems in several critical areas that have prevented a campus culture that uses Shared Governance and Collegial Consultation effectively. Examples of this include but are not limited to:

• College Leadership Council: The last two Accreditations have recommended the use of a shared governance body to participate in institutional and budgetary planning. The College Leadership Council (CLC) was created to comply with this. In the last twelve years our CLC has not realized its potential as a forum for collegial consultation in planning and budget input.
• Hiring Policy: Processes on hiring committees have been inconsistent. Committees have been accused of violations of confidentiality, disrupted, and disbanded despite a lack of evidence of violation of college policy or procedure. In one instance hiring policy was even suspended. Committee process here lacks timeliness resulting in long term cycle of vacancies and instability.
• Administrative instability and vacancies: College process has been halted or slowed because of constant turnover of administrative positions, or excessive interims, or unfilled positions. Curriculum, Academic Program Review, Student Learning Outcomes, and research are of few of the Senate committees undermined by this.
• Curriculum disruption: During critical changes to curriculum via CurricUNET and to Chapter 6 of Title 5, the Office of Instruction has been partially dismantled and understaffed. This has affected every aspect of curriculum process from development of calendar, agendas, handbook, curriculum summary, degree audit, etc. Administrative turnover here has caused devastating disruption to process and continues to the present. CurricUNET continues to be a program that has wonderful potential but is instead unnecessarily time consuming and cumbersome for faculty.
• Research vacancies: Vacancies in research since the fall 2005 departure of the director of research have caused serious barriers to Academic Program Review and development of methods of assessment for Student Learning Outcomes. Every accomplishment in these two areas has only occurred because of faculty persistence in spite of administrative barriers. The latest disruption caused a full year delay in Academic Program Review because of the mid-year departure of a new director of research who was subsequently hired as a consultant to produce the same data. This data was still delayed.
• Academic Program Review: Lack of college support for this Accreditation requirement resulted in all clerical support for this process completed by the committee. During the revision of this procedure the research analyst and committee were constantly undermined by the lack of support for Academic Program Review. Currently this process continues to move forward only through the persistent efforts of the committee.
• College-wide Reorganization: The last college-wide reorganization included consultation between administration and Academic Senate. Because the Academic Senate was consulted during the process, the Senate was able to make changes simultaneously to Senate By-laws to realign representation in the Senate and on Standing Committees. The Academic Senate and the Senate Executive Board were told directly by the Superintendent/President that the planning process for this college reorganization, a process that again impacts all academic governance structures on campus, would include direct consultation with the Academic Senate prior to any Board action. This did not occur. The Senate is now forced to react to changes that impact Senate elections, representation, Curriculum Committee, Academic Program Review, Student Learning Outcomes, etc.
• Academic Technology and On-line Instruction: In the last twelve years faculty have worked to develop this area collegially with administration. Time consuming plans are developed and not implemented. Infrastructure for on-line teaching has never worked consistently from point of registration to class adds/drops, to faculty and student support for instruction.
• Computer Support Services: Our systems to support schedule and catalog development continue to lack a faculty consultative process or administrative coordination and oversight. Problems here impact curriculum development, registration, and adjunct hiring.
• Adversarial culture: Over the last twelve years an adversarial climate has prevailed instead of shared governance. Effective communication on critical campus policies and procedures is inconsistent and faculty input in policy updates/revisions is ignored. Dissenting opinions are most often received with hostility. The required academic processes of Accreditation, Curriculum, Academic Program Review, and Student Learning Outcomes are not a college priority.

DRAFT RESOLUTION

Date Approved by Senate: 22 April 2008

Authored by: Mark Van Stone, Marsha Rutter, Patti Flores-Charter, Angelina Stuart

Title: SHARED GOVERNANCE AND COLLEGIAL CONSULTATION

Text:

WHEREAS, The Southwestern College Mission Statement states that the “College is committed to meeting the educational goals of its students in an environment that promotes intellectual growth and human potential,” and

WHEREAS, The Academic Senate has been granted the authority and legal rights therein to be the sole voice of the faculty in academic and professional matters as per AB 1725 (1988), Title 5 Section 53200-53204, 66700, and Education Code Sections 66700 and 70901, and

WHEREAS, The Southwestern College Governing Board approved District Policy 2510 and 0011, which state that the Board or its Designee will “consult collegially” with the Academic Senate in academic and professional matters in a manner of mutual trust and support, and

WHEREAS, The Academic Senate, a vital resource, has experience in collegial consultation, in historical planning at Southwestern College, and has taken the lead role in our Accreditation process by default, and

WHEREAS, The Academic Senate has the collegial right, responsibility, and freedom to take risks, agree/disagree, and voice new or unpopular ideas during collegial consultation in both public and private college meetings including but not limited to Board meetings, and

WHEREAS, The Academic Senate leaders and faculty have experienced a history of intimidation and veiled threats in decision making processes and have worked under a history of instability of top tier administrators and interim mid-level administrators that the Board and/or its Designees have hired, and

WHEREAS, The Southwestern College Governing Board and Superintendent/President continue to demonstrate both a disregard for Academic Senate faculty input and feedback in decision making as well as a lack of compliance with the spirit and the letter of the law of AB 1725, Title 5, Education Code, so

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Academic Senate again strongly urges that the Governing Board, Superintendent/President and/or Designees comply with AB 1725, Title 5, Education Code, and Southwestern College policy to consult collegially with the Academic Senate in all Academic and Professional Matters.