TAFTCOLLEGE

February 1, 2016 AS Minutes

July 20, 2016 In 2016, Minutes

February 1, 2016 AS Minutes

Taft College Academic Senate Minutes

Monday, Feb. 1, 2016

Cougar Conference Room

Members Present: President Geoffrey Dyer, Vice President Vicki Jacobi, Secretary Dan Hall, Jennifer Altenhofel, Megan Andrews, Eric Berube, Adam Bledsoe, Jill Brown, Kamala Carlson, Joe’ll Chaidez, Bill Devine, Candace Duron, Juana Escobedo, Sharyn Eveland, Chris Flachmann, Tori Furman, Shelly Getty, Greg Golling, Jessica Grimes, Abbas Jarrahian, Brian Jean, Mike Jiles, Danielle Kerr, Kelly Kulzer-Reyes, Mariza Martinez, Janis Mendenhall, Tina Mendoza, Michelle Oja, Ruby Payne, Joseph Polizzotto, Robin Polski, Stacie Rancano, Juana Rangel-Escobedo, Debra Rodenhauser, Terri Smith, Lori Sundgren, Tony Thompson, Don Thornsberry, and Melissa Thornsberry.

The meeting was called to order at 12:12 PM.

Public Commentary

  • No public commentary was offered.

Review of Jan. 14, 2016 Senate Minutes

  • The spelling of Stacie Rancano’s last name needs to be corrected.
  • Michelle Oja motioned to approve the minutes with the change mentioned above. Jennifer Altenhofel seconded the motion.  The motion carried.

Commentary on Electronic Committee Updates

  • Vicki suggested that the ADC committee meet prior to February 19th, which is the last day to ask questions to the Chancellor’s Office about the $60 million Basic Skills grant proposal.

Foundation Grants – Horn-Bunk

  • Geoffrey Dyer thanked Sheri Horn-Bunk and the Taft College Foundation for providing lunch to the senate today.
  • The Foundation gives out the Taft College Innovation Grants every year. These grants started out at $5,000 three years ago and are now up to $8,000 for this coming year.
  • The grant requests are reviewed and selected by five people on the foundation – Larry Peahl, Don Zumbro, Carolyn Hosking, Penny Fulton and Adam Alvidrez. The funding requests range from $500 to $2,500.
  • The Art Department received a grant last year and they purchased a big-screen projector and made the art gallery a Smart Room.
  • The funding requests should be something that you cannot find funding for and cannot get through the district.
  • In the first year, the foundation had $28,000 in requests, and the foundation gave out $5,000. Last year, we had $6,000 requested and had $7,000 to give away.
  • Please apply for the grant even if it is just $1,000. Whether it is for professional development or a field trip. You can find the application process on the Foundation webpage. http://web.taftcollege.edu/foundation/foundation_board_members.php
  • If you have a fund raising need, we now have a Fund Raising Initiative process form that contains five questions and gets signed by your department chair. The completed form goes to Sheri and is discussed with the VP and/or the president. Together, they prioritized the fund raising needs for the campus so that we are all on the same page. If you have a funding need and it is over $1,000, please fill out the form. Sheri can include these requests when she presents her proposals for various grants and major corporate donors.
  • Phillips 66 gave the foundation $20,000 last week with the question of “What do you need?” Sheri hears from Engineering, Energy Technology and STEM quite a bit, so that when someone asks her about the needs of our college, she has the STEM needs in front of her.

Student Research Conference – Altenhofel

  • Jennifer Altenhofel reported that the foundation funded the Student Research Conference.
  • Jennifer asked that we post the “Save the Date” announcement near where students will see it.
  • This will be the first, but hopefully annual, Student Research Conference. Any student who has done any research in any form can contribute to this conference. It can be a research paper, a poster presentation, perhaps an engineering problem they solved, a chemistry experiment, poetry, short stories, documentaries, and art—some form of student original work.
  • Part of the impetus of this is from the two alumni who were a part of the Social Science Research Group and are going to the Western Psychological Association to present their research. These two students did their research here and are presenting it at the conference.
  • There are $100, $75, and $50 cash prizes for every division. The Learning Support Division could consider a student worker who has done research on enrollment management or success rates.
  • Kelly Kulzer-Reyes responded that her English 1500 students are developing research projects inspired by the novel they are reading this semester.
  • There will be food at the conference.
  • Stacie Rancano gave another example a research project by saying that there was a group of students in the Graphic Design class where they constructed a 3D model of the stages of mitosis.
  • March 1st is the deadline for entering.

SLO Update: Input for Draft Procedure – Jacobi

  • We previously approved the second reading of the SLO procedures and it will go to the board next.
  • The SLOASC committee is thinking about getting examples of SLO procedures and guidelines from other colleges to serve as examples for us in this process.
  • Vicki asked for input from the senate on what kinds of things we should look at when developing these procedures and guidelines. Should we establish timelines, or how many SLOs there should be, or when they should be submitted?
  • IEPI will give input on the number of SLOs.
  • Vicki believes that there needs to be a cut-off date where you need to have SLOs submitted.
  • Vicki thought that we should use an in-service day to input SLO data into eLumen, and/or analyze SLO data from eLumen.
  • Ruby Paine pointed out that eLumen seems to be inconsistent in what it can do for us. The SLOs are still not linked properly.
  • Mariza Martinez mentioned that the library of SLOs is not showing up correctly.
  • Vicki talked about working towards a solution to these issues. Having a shared library of SLOs would be helpful.
  • At the January SLO workshop, the faculty participants linked PLOs with their SLOs. For future procedures, we will just select the SLOs and the PLOs will automatically be linked.
  • Joseph Polizzotto indicated a concern that there is currently no uniformity in assessing the SLOs.
  • Vicki would like to have an assessment library available.
  • Bill Devine likes erring on the side of academic freedom. So, if we are going to have procedures for SLOs, it needs to be flexible enough to accommodate all the different areas, divisions, and departments. These areas, divisions, and departments should decide how they want to proceed with the CSLOs.
  • Geoffrey encouraged us to send our thoughts about this topic to Vicki or to their division member who sits on the SLOASC committee.

Annual Program Review Documents (Second Reading) – Berube

  • We have newly revised APR documents.
  • Eric Berube made a motion to postpone the vote on approving these new documents until we hear back from the IEPI’s second visit. Brian Jean seconded the motion and the motion passed.

Taft College Academic Senate Constitution and Bylaws (Second Reading) – Dyer

  • With the approval of this second reading of this document, we can have elections for the council soon. The Senate Council will meet on the Wednesdays prior to the regular Academic Senate meetings on the first Mondays of the month.
  • Sharyn Eveland motioned to approve the 2nd reading of the constitution and bylaws. Mike Jiles seconded the motion and the motion passed. Juana Rangel-Escobedo and Candace Duron opposed the motion. With this vote, we now have a new Academic Senate constitution and bylaws.
  • We will elect the Senate Council members at the next meeting on February 17th. Send your nominations to Vicki, Geoffrey, or Dan. We need a representative from each division, an adjunct representative, and a CTE liaison. You will only be able for the representatives if you are in that area.
  • Action items will go first to the Academic Senate Council and then go to the senate of the whole. Items are not officially approved until the senate of the whole votes on them.
  • Jennifer Altenhofel made the motion to have today be the beginning of a two-week period that allows adjuncts to identify themselves as being interested in being an adjunct representative on the Senate Council. Sharyn Eveland seconded the motion. The motion carried. Geoffrey will send out an email to all adjunct faculty informing them of this opportunity.

Evaluation of Faculty Position Request Ranking Process – Dyer

  • Geoffrey recommended that we move the process of evaluating the Faculty Position Requests to the in-service in August.
  • Kelly Kulzer-Reyes said that as long as the division chairs are okay with moving this process to the August in-service, it seems like a reasonable move so that all of us can be present.
  • Bill Devine commented that if the completion of the Program Reviews, it should not be a problem identifying what faculty positions are needed in each division.
  • Geoffrey found it helpful to have a two-hour Academic Senate meeting in January.
  • Michelle Oja asked how other colleges select their faculty. It seemed that our process was somewhat of a popularity contest, or political.
    • Geoffrey said that LA Valley forms sub-committees for the process. Most senates are smaller than we are. Geoffrey was not sure how their models would fit our circumstances.
  • The rubric formally used for selecting faculty position requests at TC did not work.
  • As far as politics go, the votes cast for each position was publically posted. Geoffrey was impressed with how many times faculty voted for positions outside of their department/division.
  • Tony Thompson doesn’t get the sense that our process was political.
  • Dan Hall suggested that we make this selection process more deliberative rather than just a one-time presentation.
  • Robin Polski motioned to move the ranking process for faculty position requests to the August in-service. Sharyn Eveland seconded the motion and the motion passed.
  • Jennifer Altenhofel moved that we have a group, a subcommittee, that reviews/researches both the criteria to be used in the selection process and the effectiveness of the selection process itself. Michelle Oja seconded the motion and the motion passed.  Stacie Rancano abstained.
  • If you want to be a part of this subcommittee, let Jennifer or Michelle know.

Other

  • No other items were brought up for discussion.

Meeting adjourned at 1:00 PM.

Respectfully submitted by Dan Hall

2.01.16 Academic Senate Minutes