Members Present:<\/strong> President Geoffrey Dyer, Vice President Vicki Jacobi, Secretary Dan Hall, Jennifer\u00a0Altenhofel, Megan Andrews, Kanoe Bandy, Wendy Berry, Eric Berube, Paul Blake, Adam\u00a0Bledsoe, Joe\u2019ll Chaidez, Chris Chung-Wee, Bill Devine, Kelly Donovan, John Eigenauer, Juana Escobedo, Sharyn Eveland, Shelly Getty, Greg Golling, Jessica Grimes, Dan Hall, Abbas Jarrahian, Brian Jean, Michael Jiles, Diane Jones, Danielle Kerr, Kelly Kulzer-Reyes, David Layne, Julian Martinez, Mariza Martinez, Janis Mendenhall, Tina Mendoza, Michelle Oja, Ruby\u00a0Payne, Joseph Polizzotto, Natalie Ramirez, Stacie Rancano, Juana Rangel-Escobedo, Joy Reynolds, Debra Rodenhauser, Becky Roth, Terri Smith, Lori Sundgren, Tony Thompson, Don Thornsberry, and Melissa Thornsberry.<\/p>\n The meeting was called to order at 8:12 AM.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 No public commentary was offered.<\/p>\n Review of Dec. 7 and Dec. 11, 2015 Senate Minutes<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 No changes made were made to the minutes of either meeting.<\/p>\n Commentary on Electronic Committee Updates<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 There was no commentary given regarding the electronic committee updates.<\/p>\n Welcome to New Faculty \u2013 Dyer<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Geoffrey welcomed our new faculty: John Carrithers, Wayne Cottrell, Lori Sundgren, Don Thornsberry and Melissa Thornsberry.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We now have 60 full-time faculty at TC. Quorum for the Academic Senate meetings is now at 20.<\/p>\n Professional Development Committee Charter \u2013 Roth<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As an informational\/discussion item, Becky Roth presented the new charter for the Professional Development Committee. The PDC is an operational committee, not a subcommittee of the Academic Senate, with three co-chairs: a faculty co-chair (Becky Roth), the Vice-President of Instruction (Mark Williams), and the Vice-President of Human Resources (Robert Meteau).<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Since policies for faculty professional development is part of the 10 +1, should the faculty that sit on the Professional Development Committee be designated as Senate reps so that they will report back to the senate?<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Rebecca Roth presented an option that perhaps the PDC be made up of three subgroups: one representing faculty, one representing classified, and one representing management. The PDC meets every month now, but perhaps they can meet every other month and have subcommittees of the faculty and the staff have separate meetings on the opposite months.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Have we grown too large to meet all of the needs of every group within the in-service time?<\/p>\n o\u00a0\u00a0 Jennifer Altenhofel would like to have subject specific professional development offered either as an option on campus or at conferences.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Diane Jones suggested that requests for faculty to attend conference needs to come from our Divisions.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Right now we have 14 days that we come to campus to attend meetings. If we were to label these days as Professional Development (with the flexibility of using these days throughout the academic year) we then might need to individually account for our Professional Development hours.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Geoffrey Dyer offered that his perception was that PDC was probably working well now, but felt that the Senate should be apprised of the charter, given the 10 + 1. Rebecca Roth volunteered to bring the information from the Senate discussion back to the PDC.<\/p>\n IEPI Initial Observation Letter \u2013 Dyer<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative Team issued an observation letter after visiting our campus and meeting with various campus stakeholders.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Their next visit will be in February.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Geoffrey read the letter to the senate. The main recommendation from the team was that the SLO process needs to be refined.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We are to develop a plan and are eligible apply for a one-time, $150,000 institutional effectiveness grant.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Eric felt that their letter contained mostly accurate information, but their comments regarding the Strategic Planning Committee were inaccurate. Eric believes we should hold off on formulating the plan until we hear from the ACCJC regarding our accreditation.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Diane agreed with Eric and we need to hear back from the accreditation team before moving forward with a plan.<\/p>\n Draft Policy for SLOs (Second Reading)\u2013 Jacobi<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Vicki Jacobi presented the policy on Student Learning Outcomes. The policy states that the West Kern Community College District will work with the Academic Senate on creation of procedures for SLOs.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Michelle Oja moved to accept the policy for SLOs. Stacie Rancano seconded the motion.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bill Devine stated that the AS is likely to spend more time discussing the forthcoming procedures than the policy.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The motion passed.<\/p>\n Annual Program Review Documents (First Reading) \u2013 Berube<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Eric Berube presented revised Annual Program Review and Program Goal forms. The\u00a0 forms have been altered to more deeply imbed the use of SLO data into the program review, planning, and budget allocation processes. Berube has compared other Program Review models across the system and believes we are using a good model for Program Review.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Geoffrey Dyer stated that an earlier version of amendments of these forms was brought to AS in the fall of 2015 and summarized concerns members of the senate had about the earlier proposed revisions: that not all budget allocations or program goals are the effect of SLO data and that choosing SLOs from a drop-down menu on the goal form might potentially disadvantage goals that were not linked to SLOs. He commended Berube and the SPC for taking these concerns of the AS into their new, revised forms, which account for these considerations by placing SLO data concerns alongside other important indicators such as student achievement outcomes.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mike Jiles moved to approve the first reading of the APR documents. Jennifer Altenhofel seconded the motion, and the motion passed. None opposed. Stacie Rancano abstained.<\/p>\n Taft College Academic Senate Constitution and Bylaws (First Reading) \u2013 Dyer<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Geoffrey Dyer reviewed the events leading up to this first reading of our draft senate constitution and bylaws: All 113 California Community Colleges were examined for their full-time faculty headcount and the structure of their academic senates. In early fall of 2015, a motion was passed to create a taskforce to delineate the current practices of the Taft College Academic Senate. These procedures were documented by the taskforce and adopted by a subsequent motion to accept current practices while a new constitution was drafted. A new constitution and bylaws taskforce worked collaboratively to shape the new document. As inputs in the document\u2019s creation, selected models of academic senates that used a senate-of-the-whole but also a smaller body were analyzed by the TC AS. The taskforce for a new constitution and bylaws surveyed the\u00a0 Academic Senate as a baseline for determining what the makeup of the smaller body might be.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Of the noncredit liaison, the legislative liaison, and the CTE liaison, only\u00a0 the CTE liaison position demonstrated perceived need by faculty through the poll.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Brian Jean is not in favor of having adjunct professors be voting members of the senate.\u00a0 Adjuncts may not have the same loyalties\/priorities that full-time faculty have.<\/p>\n o\u00a0\u00a0 Stacie Rancano mentioned that this issue might also be an issue for non-tenured faculty.<\/p>\n o\u00a0\u00a0 Tony stated that we should not assume what loyalties the adjuncts may have.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Michelle Oja said that the survey given to faculty regarding the makeup of the senate showed that\u00a0 faculty are in favor of having representation from adjunct professors. However, the survey did not ask any questions about the participating adjuncts having voting rights.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Geoffrey Dyer voiced that since adjuncts are instrumental in teaching our students and in advising our students, should they not also have voting rights as members of the senate?<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bill Devine and Michelle Oja emphasized that we can always change this policy or the language of the policy.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mike Jiles felt that adjunct professors need to be given the opportunity to have a voice in matters of the senate.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Greg Golling pointed out that most businesses do not include part-time employees in the making of major decisions.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Jennifer Altenhofel said that we should not assume that the adjuncts are not vested in what occurs at Taft College.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Tony Thompson offered that Geoffrey Dyer is doing what the State Academic Senate has recommended.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Brian Jean stated that having a minimum of 10 adjuncts as part of the quorum could prove very difficult.<\/p>\n o\u00a0\u00a0 Geoffrey Dyer pointed out that if meeting a quorum is a concern, perhaps a senate-of-the-whole is not the best model, since existing schedules preclude some full time faculty from attending meetings.<\/p>\n o\u00a0\u00a0 Sharyn Eveland thinks that the adjuncts will self identify if they are willing to make a commitment to attending the meetings.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bill made the motion to accept the first reading of the senate constitution and bylaws. Seconded by Sharyn. Motion passed.\u00a0 Brian Jean, Julian Martinez, and Juana Rangel-Escobedo voted \u201cNo\u201d.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The second reading of the senate constitution and bylaws will be on February 1st.<\/p>\n Dual Enrollment \u2013 Jacobi<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Vicki Jacobi led the discussion, which was tabled on December 7, 2015.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dual Enrollment is also known as Concurrent Enrollment.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 AB288 is the College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP) law pushing this issue. It states that high school students may take up to fifteen units per semester in college coursework, and it includes CCAP courses.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This emphasis on dual enrollment can be good, but the college needs to be in control of the process\/implementation.\u00a0 We need to establish a plan with a MOU with partnering schools. The high school teachers need to have minimum qualifications and training.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bill Devine asked if we aren\u2019t already following these guidelines.<\/p>\n o\u00a0\u00a0 Currently, the dual enrollment seems to be directed by the high school (Taft High).<\/p>\n o\u00a0\u00a0 Geoffrey Dyer recalled that the high school wanted to remove their AP classes but still wanted their students to get college credit.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bill Devine stated that in the past, the students who participated in dual enrollment were the best of the best.<\/p>\n o\u00a0\u00a0 AB288 emphasizes the inclusion of more first generation students and more pre-collegiate students.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Rebecca Roth would like to see ECEF brought into dual enrollment.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dual enrollment should have to complete a Program Review.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Diane Jones suggested that the Dual Enrollment Committee should meet soon and hash out some of these issues.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Stacie Rancano offered that our college district does have other high schools besides Taft High to bring into this partnership.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mike Jiles felt that courses in CJA are not appropriate for high school students for a variety of reasons.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Rebecca Roth motioned to have the Dual Enrollment committee meet to discuss the needed AB288 changes.\u00a0 Jessica Grimes seconded the motion.\u00a0 The motion passed. Paul Blake, Don Thornsberry, Janis Mendenhall, Melissa Thornsberry, and Rebecca Roth voiced a desire to join the existing task force: Diane Jones, Bill Devine, and Greg Golling.<\/p>\n Evaluation of Faculty Position Request Ranking Process \u2013 Dyer<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Geoffrey Dyer felt that the presentations given in December came too late for the faculty hiring process.\u00a0 Geoffrey suggested moving the faculty ranking to the August in-service after the Program Review process has completed.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Chris Chung-wee was concerned that the chairs would have to work in the summer and wondered if they would get paid for that work.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bill felt the only problem with doing the ranking in August would be that the chairs would not be able to meet with their division faculty before the presentations.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Vicki thought the issue of the division chairs putting in effort towards this process is not about compensation but about time. In some divisions, the faculty put the presentations together.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Regarding faculty being present to vote their ranking preference, John Eigenauer suggested that Geoffrey open an Academic Senate meeting at 8:00 AM and close the meeting at 4:00 PM. Between 8:00 and 4:00, we could have senate reps available to allow faculty to show up to cast their vote when they can make it throughout the day. Geoffrey said that all must be present to vote and that the actions of each member must be reported out, also citing concerns about quorum.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Vicki Jacobi proposed that we have the ranking presentations done by May and have them available for faculty to review way ahead of time.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Michelle O. wondered how other college senates conduct the business of hiring their faculty.<\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sharyn motioned to continue this discussion at the next Academic Senate meeting. Mike seconded the motion. The motion passed.<\/p>\n Other<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 More questions\/comments regarding dual enrollment:<\/p>\n o\u00a0\u00a0 Kelly asked if high school students are to participate in dual enrollment, do they have to be at transfer level?<\/p>\n o\u00a0\u00a0 Wendy asked if there wasn\u2019t a protocol in place were faculty are informed and give permission for high school students to be registered in their class.<\/p>\n o\u00a0\u00a0 Joy asked if faculty have to be notified if the high school students graduate from high school.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Meeting adjourned at 10:02 AM.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Respectfully submitted by Dan Hall<\/p>\n <\/p>\nPublic Commentary<\/strong><\/h4>\n