V. ACTION ITEMS:

1. Curriculum Committee Elections: Two new members of the Curriculum Committee were selected by Senate acclamation. Randall Gust, Acquisitions Librarian, will be replacing C. Rhim as the permanent voting member; the Art Cluster will be represented by Marie Alanen..

1. President’s Report:
   
   1. Professional Development Handbook: D. Beaulieu provided an update and review of the extensive discussion that occurred at the February 1 Senate meeting for those who did not attend. Genuine satisfaction with handbook was expressed by those at that meeting, and a notice motion to vote on approval of the handbook was scheduled for the Senate meeting on February 22. M. Ozuna, staff development coordinator, will return at that time to respond to any last concerns. Discussion then continued on the topic.

      (a) The issue of a precedent having been set for those who serve on department hiring committees to receive Flex credit was discussed. D. Senensieb pointed out that service on hiring committees is not a contractual obligation. Therefore it should be eligible and should be encouraged. It should not be only applied to interdisciplinary departments. C. Rodriguez agreed that if precedent has been set, then it should not be changed.
      (b) A. Immerblum stated that service is part of our professional obligation. He raised the question: “How is serving on a hiring committee professional development - how does it make us a better teacher? Faculty need to be more involved.” L. Kallan who served on the Professional Development Committee explained how the guideline evolved. The committee looked at a lot of factors and concluded that service on a department hiring committee is part of the job.
      (c) J. Hernandez stated that he has reviewed the regulations regarding professional growth to determine what is allowed and cited some activities that are accepted. He has concluded that ELAC does not have a legitimate program of activities for professional development, given the lack of a budget. If we had activities in place, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. Also we should not go so far in the way of regulating professional development. C. Rodriguez concurred with both Alex and Jeff, stating that we just don’t have the program to enable one to complete the requirement. She pointed out that Pasadena City College has suspended the requirement because they are unable to provide an effective program, while Glendale has a very thorough program.
      (d) A. Samad questioned why faculty who attend conferences that overlap with their teaching schedule cannot not receive credit when probably 80 percent of all conferences are held in the academic year, thus creating a disincentive to attend conferences. L. Kallan pointed out that they do receive credit for conference attendance, except that portion of the day that they would be in class or office hours. This is “double dipping.” Faculty cannot be paid twice for any activity for which they receive compensation.
      (e) S. Eden pointed out that at this point we were talking about “apples and oranges” – two different issues: what should be included in the handbook and the need to look at developing a professional program on campus. There was general consensus that we need to explore the development of a program.
      (f) L. Kallan pointed out that she didn’t realize the Senate is voting on approval of the handbook at the next meeting and that this is not enough time for her department to hold discussion. L. Gaines recommended that faculty should e-mail any concerns to the committee so that they can be worked out before the vote. K. Daar stated that it is imperative that we vote next time. D. Beaulieu also stated that we ought to make a decision about the handbook, as many other matters are pressing.
      (g) D. Senensieb questioned when the handbook guidelines will take effect. No definitive answer was given, although it is assumed they will be in force when the handbook is approved.

   2. Program Review: Senators will also vote on the approval of the program review process at the next meeting. Senators should review the provided packet of information with their departments. Discussion was then held about the inclusion of a classified staff member on a validation committee.

      (a) Some departments, such as Life Science and Nursing, have a significant instructional assistant component and therefore favor inclusion. D. Anderson stated that she asked her department’s instructional assistants if they are interested in serving. They said yes. Their duties could be affected depending on recommendations made by the committee. L. Gaines also supports classified inclusion.
      (b) O. Tulifua, classified staff representative, would like to see a classified staff member serve on a validation committee as a voting member for those departments that have instructional assistants. If classified staff members are not empowered with a vote, they are not likely to be receptive to serving.
      (c) D. Senensieb stated that although Math has instructional assistants, he does not favor the proposal. The instructional assistants have no vote in Math Department decisions; sometimes they are asked not to be present when sensitive matters are discussed. To ask for input is one thing, but no vote should be allowed. The inclusion of a voting member should be a department decision rather than a blanket requirement. J. Hernandez and A. Samad oppose a voting member.
      (d) D. Beaulieu stated that the consensus at the February 1 meeting was that only departments that have instructional assistants will have a voting member.
      (e) K. Daar stated that the position of the State Academic Senate on program review makes it clear that classified staff and students should be included.
      (f) L. Gaines pointed that accreditation stresses major inclusion of all members of the community. We need to consider this.
      (g) D. Beaulieu offered this summary of three options: a classified staff member will serve as a voting member on validation committees for departments that have instructional assistants and on committees for other departments as a non-voting member; a classified member will serve on all committees but be non-voting for all; or the classified staff member will vote in cases where the department consents.

   3. Approval of Faculty Hires for 2005-2006. The president has not made any hiring decisions yet as he is still considering district budget figures. The outlook doesn’t look encouraging, however. D. Senensieb pointed out that the eight-week recruiting should have begun as of mid-January to avoid rushed hiring.
2. Facilities Committee Report: To be discussed at the next meeting.
   
3. Budget Committee Report: Tabled.

VII. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR: None.