V. OFFICER AND COMMITTEE REPORTS:

A. President’s Report: Tabled
B. Facilities Committee Report: Tabled.

1. New Professional Development Handbook: D. Beaulieu gave some background on the proposed new edition of the Handbook, which the Professional Development Committee, led by Professional Development Coordinator, Margaret Ozuna, worked hard last fall to develop. The committee met with the individuals who raised questions about previous actions of the committee regarding the approval of Flex hours and incorporated their concerns into the final draft. The Senate executive board reviewed the Handbook in January and made suggestions for minor changes and formatting. The Handbook, which has been distributed via e-mail to all senators and chairs, must be approved by the Senate before it can be distributed to the faculty at large. The vote for approval will take place at the February 22 Senate meeting. David commended Margaret and the committee members for their hard work on the document and thanked Margaret and committee members, M. Mayork, B. Moore, and R. Crawford, for attending the Senate meeting. Senators then participated in a discussion with the committee members.
   1. M. Ozuna: Margaret thanked the committee members and then added to the explanation offered by David about the development of the handbook. She stressed the committee’s efforts to merge the requests for change that were made last spring with the content of the old handbook. She reviewed over 20 handbooks from other colleges for ideas on content.
      
      1. (a) The state chancellor requires that every college certify that it is in compliance with the Flex requirements. Therefore all requests for Flex hours must have verification.
         
      2. (b) The form for the final report will be goldenrod in color. The handbook will also have a worksheet on which faculty can keep a record for activities completed. There will also be a pre-approval form which a faculty member can submit to the committee if in doubt about the validity of a particular individual activity.
         
      3. (c) Times for the spring meetings for the Professional Development Committee will rotate so that more faculty can attend. Meetings will be held during the college hour (12:10-1:30); 1:30-3:30; and at 3:30-5:30. Dates will be set at the first meeting of the semester.
   2. B. Moore: Barbara pointed out that Katherine Pfeiffer was instrumental in influencing the process chosen with her arguments to the committee that pre-approval for every activity is not useful.
   3. Questions about Handbook Content were answered:
      1. D. Anderson: Question P. 10: How will the committee handle the conflict that may occur when conference attendance occurs at the same time the attendee is scheduled to be in class, given that the attendee has no control over when conferences are scheduled? Answer: Faculty cannot claim attendance at a conference when the time overlaps with class hours or office hours. This is considered “double dipping.” They can, however, claim credit for attendance that does not specifically interfere with classes or office hours.
         
      2. L. Kallan: Q. P. 9: Why is no credit given for maintaining a department approved newsletter but it is for maintaining a department Web site? A. This was an oversight. A change will be made to the handbook. Up to five hours credit will be given.
         
      3. C. Nagatani: Q. If some college activity conflicts with scheduled office hours--for example, her concert times conflict with her office hours--can Flex credit be earned? A. No. She should set different office hours. A discussion about office hour flexibility problems led to L. Gaines comment that this is “smothering” and may be a disincentive to participate in activities. B. Moore pointed out that office hour rules are an Academic Affairs issue.
         
      4. J. Kenny: Q. P. 6: Why does taking courses for a pay raise not count for Flex credit? A. Anything that enhances your pay cannot receive flex credit; for example writing a book or an article or taking a course for which you will ultimately receive pay is considered to be double-dipping.
         
      5. S. Eden: Q. She has to take 36 units every other year to keep her license. Can she and other professionals who must be licensed receive credit for keeping their licenses current? Professional Development will address this issue at the next meeting.
         
      6. D. Beaulieu, speaking for J. Hernandez (who could not attend the meeting): Q. How long does the narrative for verification of an activity have to be? A. There is no specification in the new handbook. Faculty work on the honor system. They should make the narrative as long as necessary. K. Daar noted that she learned from a friend at College of the Canyon that pre-approval is necessary for every activity. Faculty presentations of findings are necessary. Faculty are encouraged to complete all professional development on campus.
         
      7. L. Chang: Q. Can we find out how many hours we currently have earned? A. A student worker is currently inputting the hours and Margaret is working with Vibha Gupta to get the hours posted online so faculty can check them at any time.
         
      8. D. Beaulieu, speaking for D. Senensieb: Q. P. 4: Why can’t a faculty member receive credit for serving on an employment panel for his/her department? He believes there is a precedent for this and it is an incentive for faculty to serve on numerous panels. A. B. Moore stated that the committee discussed this and feels it is part of a faculty member’s regular duties. There may have been a past allowance, but that does not mean it was justifiable.
         
      9. L. Chang: Q. What about getting credit for serving on a hiring committee for a faculty member within a cluster? A. As it stands, no credit is provided. There is an appeal process, however, and the committee is receptive to the particular circumstances for faculty in a cluster department, such as Foreign Language.
         
      10. J. Kenny: Q. What about those faculty, such as he, who have anticipated credit for hours that will not be acceptable with the new handbook? A. He should submit his question to the committee.
          
      11. C. Nagatani: Q. What about faculty who have activities after June 9? A. Faculty may do activities up to June 30, but must submit their forms by that date.
   4. Printing of Handbook: M. Mayork asked the senators their opinion about placement of the handbook in a 3-ring binder so that pages with changes can be easily added and old pages removed. No one objected to this idea. Although time is of the essence for getting the handbook distributed, it will not be printed until final approval is given by the Senate. It will vote on February 22.
      
   5. Discussion of Handbook in Our Departments. J. Kenny suggested that senators present the handbook to their departments as a positive document that will help us do our jobs better.
2. Revised Program Review Process: D. Beaulieu and K. Daar led the discussion. The Senate must determine and approve the process by which the college conducts program review, and we must work with dispatch to get it going. Senate approval will be called for at its February 22 meeting.
   
   1. The various program review documents which have been distributed to the senators online were discussed. Hard copy of the documents will be distributed on February 8 to the Chairs Committee. The topics covered in the documents include the timeline for program review; the college validation process; the names of the program review units; and the comprehensive program review protocol of the academic units.
   2. Some academic departments will participate in an initial run of the process during spring semester. Women’s P.E. has volunteered. B. Baity stated that the Computer Applications and Office Technologies Department might participate. Program review will start full force in the fall.
   3. Every unit will complete a comprehensive program review every six years, with all program review to be completed in the first 4 years of the six-year cycle. Our first program review cycle will occur in 3 years rather than 4, however, to bring the process into alignment with the schedule for our accreditation self study preparation, strategic and educational planning, and accreditation visit.
   4. David noted that no validation was done during the last program review cycle. Recommendations of the validation committee will go to EBPAC and then to the President. The follow-through process is still being determined.
   5. Conducting program review will be especially troublesome for small departments. R. Moyer has offered clerical help, but we cannot count on it.
   6. Program review drives everything. It will be a valuable resource for all campus activities. Program review is directly tied to student learning outcomes and to accreditation. In response to J. Kenny’s question about the Governor’s accountability demands on the district, David responded that he does not believe that the college has to directly respond to them at this point. They are at the district level for now.
   7. Senators discussed the proposal from O. Tulifua, the classified employees bargaining representative, that a classified staff member should serve on an academic unit’s validation committee. D. Anderson and L. Gaines spoke in support of classified staff on committees. Life Sciences has classified staff, and they play a very important role in the success of the department. D. Anderson noted that if recommendations are made for a department, the jobs of classified staff could be affected. Therefore, Life Sciences favors having a classified member on their committee. L. Gaines, Nursing Department, views classified staff as the backbone of the institution and her unit would favor a voting classified member. Some senators questioned why there should be a classified member on a committee for a department that has no classified staff. They also questioned why a classified member with no knowledge of the academic unit should serve on a committee. There is a need to match classified staff to committees that cover areas with which they would be familiar. This proposal was made: A validation committee will have a non-voting classified staff member if no classified staff member works in the unit in an instructional capacity (that is, as an IA). A validation committee will have a voting classified staff member if a classified staff member works in the unit in an instructional capacity. There was general agreement with this proposal.

   VII. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR: None.

   VIII ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m.
   
   Respectfully submitted,
   
   Brenda Baity, Secretary
   Academic Senate Minutes Page 5 February 1, 2005