25% Class Cuts, or . . .

Academic Senate Reorganization Input / Suggestions (06/18/09)

With input from the campus community, the following budget and reorganization suggestions were presented by the Academic Senate in Spring and Summer 2009. Highlights, in red, were inserted in June as priorities that have budget implications.

Campus reorganization must be reviewed by all constituents. Several academic programs have been moved multiple times over the last 5 years. Collegial consultation prior to change is required by 10 + 1 agreements. Allow sufficient time for input on reorganization.

Legend: A = Cost Effective; B = Organizational Effectiveness; C = Campus Culture/Climate

Administrative/Institutional		In Agreement – 6/15/09 Memo
	Reduce the number of deans and keep the department chairs (A,B,C) Combine Vice Presidents for Human Resource and Financial/Business (A,B) (estimated savings of $160,000 dollars) Place moratorium on new administration positions (eliminate Instruction, Research) (A,B) (Cost savings of approximately $500,000 to $1 million) Put online and Continuing Education under existing schools (A,B) Eliminate center administrators, one dean over 3 centers, with either a supervisor or director (A,B,C) Establish Research Office (A,B,C) Place Accreditation under Research (A,B) Limit outside contractors/consultants (A,B,C) Replace Keenan & Associates with more cost effective consultant (A,B,C) Academic Senate be relocated under Superintendent/President as per Title 5 (B,C) Improve HR efficiency in hiring, evaluate advertising timelines and locations (A,B,C) Eliminate unnecessary supervisors and directors have one or the other. (A,B,C) Eliminate the $1.7 million in this year’s tentative budget for PT/OL since the college reduced the course offerings in the last two years (A) Concessions money from events need to go into the general fund. (A) Maintain Board reserves at 4% instead of the proposed increase (A)	(Reference: June 15, 2009 Budget Recommendation Memo) Pg. 1, Nos. 9, 19 Pg. 2, Nos. 34, 43, 47
Center
	1. Conduct a Cost analysis of centers and close those at a deficit (A,B,C) 2. Rent center space (A,B,C) 3. Return support staff to CV campus (A) 4. Evaluate FTE by credit and non-credit to centers. Use data to plan and project. (A,C) 5. Reduce number of deans, have one dean to cover all three centers, either one supervisor or director at each, not both (A,B,C)
Schools
	1. Reduce number of schools, consolidate programs on the CV campus (A,B,C) 2. Increase online offerings to maintain a competitive edge (A,B) 3. Obtain outside funding (A) 4. Condensed 4 day work week (A) (last estimated between $1 million to $2 million savings)
Employee Relations
	1. Offer Retirement incentives (A) – our last Golden handshake incentive offered by the district, saved an estimated $2 million at the time 2. VPAA: a) needs to participate more in curriculum and instruction, i.e., CC, APR, SLO (B,C) b) needs to advocate for faculty and academic issues, such as: (B,C) • Support faculty coordinators overseeing academic areas, i.e. tenure review, curriculum committee, and SLOs • Support Faculty leaders in off-campus professional development activities 4. Send out electronic weekly campus bulletin and post on campus website (B,C) 5. Analyze and go paperless wherever possible (A) 6. Increase public information via SWC website and other media outlets (B,C) 7. Improve communication between all constituencies (C) a. Joint communiqués between District and Academic Senate (C) b. Inform and collaborate before decisions are made (C) c. Adopt Google Calendar (C) 8. Value our employees and showcase those who do extraordinary things. (C) a. Solicit cost saving suggestions and reward them, i.e., a $5 Starbucks card, bookstore certificate (C)	Pg. 1, No. 11 Pg. 4, No. 80 Pg. 15, No. 295
Facilities
	Utilize corner lot for portable classrooms (A) Fundraise, i.e., Foundation could sell brick pavers for any construction or remodel (A) Make Technology purchases to keep infrastructure up to par (A,B,C) Re-evaluate technology replacement plan and timelines for faculty and staff (B) Obtain input from faculty for curriculum and instructional use as well as equipment lease agreements (A,B,C) Reduce evening hours in the Cesar Chavez building to two nights per week (A)	Pg. 5, Nos. 115, 116, 118 Pg. 6, No. 125 Pg. 7, Nos. 155, 160 Pg. 8, Nos. 173, 174, 175, 177, 178 Pg. 8, Nos. 182, 187, 197, 198, 199 Pg. 10, Nos. 200, 205 Pg. 12, No. 230

Legend: A = Cost Effective; B = Organizational Effectiveness; C = Campus Culture/Climate

No Confidence in Chopra from Department Chairs

SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE COUNCIL OF CHAIRS
RESOLUTION

Date: 07 May 2009
Authored by: The Council of Chairs

Title: Vote of No Confidence in Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra

WHEREAS, The Council of Chairs, as the faculty leaders of departments and programs within the academic schools and centers at Southwestern College in all academic matters, fundamentally disagrees with many of the decisions and priorities of the current Superintendent/President, and

WHEREAS, due to recent actions taken by the Superintendent/President to reorganize the Southwestern College campus with a total lack of regard or consideration for the immediate and long term effect on academic programs and services and the students that they serve, and

WHEREAS, the Council of Chairs takes exception to the decision to eliminate institutional capability to pursue and maintain grant and other critical outside funding sources for present and future innovative and relevant programs, and

WHEREAS, there has been a lack of transparency in the budget process and a public misrepresentation of the budget, and

WHEREAS, the Council of Chairs takes great exception to the process by which the Superintendent/President makes decisions without adhering to the tenets of shared governance and with an apparent lack of understanding of academics, and thus expressed in a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra, now therefore

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Southwestern College Council of Chairs solemnly votes no confidence in Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra, and

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Southwestern College Council of Chairs urges the Southwestern College District Governing Board to take swift, direct and deliberate action to address concerns of the chairs and their departments as expressed clearly by the vote of no confidence at the April 30, 2009 Council of Chairs meeting, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southwestern College Council of Chairs urges the Southwestern Community College District Governing Board to investigate the process by which decisions directly affecting academic programs and their students are made, and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Southwestern College Council of Chairs respectfully requests that the Southwestern Community College District Governing Board provide a written response to this resolution by June 15, 2009 detailing the Governing Board’s plan to provide direction to Superintendent/President Chopra to ensure that shared governance be adhered to and funding for innovative and relevant programs that provide opportunities for our college and students are actively pursued.

2. Overview of Academic Senate Shared Governance Policy as seen in “10+1” document

Defining and Understanding the Role of the Academic Senate
“Ten plus One” State law: Education Code
Excerpts from Education Code, Title 5 (Section 53200) definitions and accreditation requirements:

Academic Senate means an organization whose primary function is to make recommendations with respect to academic and professional matters. Accreditation is critical for courses, degrees, and certificates have value. Major Faculty responsibilities include but are not limited to curriculum development, Academic Program Review, annual documented Professional Development, and implementation of Student Learning Outcomes.

Academic and Professional matters means following policy development and implementation matters. At a California Community College Senate responsibilities include creating and updating all curriculum (currently more than 1,500 courses), ensuring that courses will transfer and/or meet associate’s degree requirements and/or meet community need. Faculty must volunteer and participate on numerous college committees, which drive college operations. Participation in planning and budget development participation are a part of faculty responsibilities.

Consult Collegially means that the district Governing Board shall develop policies on academic and professional matters through either or both of the following:
Rely primarily is defined as “upon the advice and judgment of the Academic Senate”
Mutual agreement is defined as “the Governing Board, or its designees, and the Academic Senate shall reach by written resolution, regulation, or policy of the governing board effectuating such recommendations.
1. Curriculum (including establishing prerequisites)
2. Degree and certificate requirements
3. Grading policies
4. Educational program development
5. Standards or policies regarding student preparation and success
6. College governance structures, as related to faculty roles
7. Faculty roles and involvement in Accreditation processes
8. Policies for Faculty Professional Development activities
9. Processes for Academic Program Review
10. Processes for Institutional planning and budget development
11. Other academic and professional matters, as mutually agreed upon

Southwestern College Academic Senate and Governing Board Agreement for the “10 + 1”
Rely Primarily:
• Degree & Certificate requirements
• Grading Policies
• District & College governance structures related to faculty roles
• Faculty Professional Development (Staff Development/Flex credit)
Mutual Agreement:
• Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites & placing courses within disciplines
• Educational program development
• Standards & Policies regarding student preparation & success
• Faculty role and involvement in Accreditation processes, including self-study and annual reports
• Program review
• Institutional Strategic planning & budget development
• Other academic & professional matters that are mutually agreed upon

The intent of AB 1725 and its subsequent Ed. Code in Title 5 is that faculty will be responsible for academic and professional matters by participating in what has become known as “Shared Governance”. The intent of the law and Ed. Code is that faculty contribute their expertise and experience to college planning and budget development. This requires organized and timely collaboration using college committee structures. The result is informed decisions made by college administrators, which are then forwarded to the Governing Board for discussion, public input, revised consideration, and then action.

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.

4. Statewide Shared Governance Anniversary Release, Fall 2008

FACULTY LEADERS CELEBRATE LANDMARK LEGISLATION
Faculty participate in a celebration of landmark legislation – AB 1725

LOS ANGELES, Calif.—November 10, 2008—The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges held its 40th annual Fall Plenary Session, November 6-8, 2008, at the Los Angeles Westin Bonaventure. Over the course of three days, faculty, staff, student leaders, and administrators attended workshops, listened to minimum qualifications testimony, and voted on 35 separate resolutions.

In recognition of the passage of the landmark legislation commonly known as the community college reform act, the 2008 Fall Plenary Session’s theme was, “Celebrating Participatory Governance: Twenty Years After AB 1725.” This bill, passed in 1988, legislated authority and responsibilities for local senates of California community colleges, power that even twenty years later does not exist in any other community college system in the nation.

The Senate’s Executive Committee and its standing committees offered over 30 separate workshops for the nearly 300 Session attendees along with four general sessions including such keynote presenters as California Community College Vice Chancellor Patrick Perry, Barstow’s Institutional Researcher Robert Pacheco, FACCC Executive Director Jonathan Lightman, former Statewide Academic Senate President Norbert Bischof, and leaders in the Umoja Community. Topics ranged from Accreditation to Title 5 changes, and provided the most current, topical insight into important issues facing faculty in California.

Comments from the attendees praised the Senate for the organization and information provided.

“I’ve attend many plenary sessions and this is one of the best the Senate has ever held.”

“Gave many ideas to help me understand what faculty and senates can do.”

“Informed me of a topic I wasn’t that familiar with from the perspective of those involved in the process.”

“Breakouts provided examples of how other campuses deal with problems.”

“Made me more aware of what support is available for our senate from the State Senate”

“Presenters were clear, relevant and interesting.”

“Expanded my knowledge of the world view beyond my view”

At the Fall Plenary Session, faculty from across the state listened to and participated in debates on all 35 resolutions, embodying the kind of healthy discourse that the Academic Senate advocates. The resolutions will soon be posted on the Academic Senate’s website at www.asccc.org.

The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges fosters the effective participation by community college faculty in all statewide and local academic and professional matters; develops, promotes, and acts upon policies responding to statewide concerns; and serves as the official voice of the faculty of California Community Colleges in academic and professional matters. The Academic Senate strengthens and supports the local senates of all California community colleges.

9. Academic Senate Resolution: No Confidence, April 29, 2009

SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE ACADEMIC SENATE
RESOLUTION

Date: 28 April 2009
Authored by: Academic Senate Executive Committee, by direction


Title: Vote of No Confidence in Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra


WHEREAS, The Academic Senate, as the legal representative of the faculty of
Southwestern College in all academic and professional matters, fundamentally disagrees with many of the decisions and priorities of the current Superintendent/President, and


WHEREAS, due to recent actions taken by the Superintendent/President to reorganize the Southwestern College campus with a total lack of regard for Southwestern College’s standing commitment to its own Shared Governance Guidelines adopted by the District on January 8, 1997, which in part state as follows:

Shared Governance is the act of District employees participating collegially in the decision-making process of the college. The goal of shared governance is to include, within the decision-making process, representatives of all college constituencies affected by these decisions. . . To ensure that governance is shared, all groups shall operate within the shared governance processes. Mutual trust and support are essential for the success of shared governance. These result from a demonstration by each group involved that they first seek to improve the college and strengthen its ability to carry out the college’s mission of educating our constituent populations…; and

WHEREAS, the Academic Senate takes great exception to the process by which the
Superintendent/President makes decisions, and thus expressed in a 26 to 1 vote of no confidence in the leadership of the Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra, now therefore

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Southwestern College Academic Senate solemnly votes no confidence in Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra, and

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Southwestern College Academic Senate urges the
Southwestern College District Governing Board to take swift, direct and deliberate action to address concerns of the faculty as expressed clearly by the vote of no confidence at the April 28, 2009 Academic Senate meeting.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southwestern College Academic Senate urges
the Southwestern Community College District Governing Board to open dialogue formally with the faculty prior to June 15, 2009 for purposes of addressing concerns expressed by all members of the Academic Senate in its vote of no confidence, and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Southwestern College Academic Senate
respectfully requests that the Southwestern Community College District Governing Board provide a written response to this resolution by June 15, 2009 detailing the Governing Board’s plan to improve the relationship between the Superintendent/President and the faculty of Southwestern College, and to ensure true shared governance at Southwestern College as defined by: Education Code Sections 70902(b) (7), Title 5 Sections 53200 et seq, 51023.5 and 51023.7; and Accreditation Standards IV A.2. and IV.A.5.