V. OFFICER AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

1. President’s Report:
   1. Vice President of Student Services Selection: President Moreno, after reviewing the credentials of three candidates, has chosen R. C. Williams III as vice president of student services. He began his new position on April 1. The faculty who served on the selection panel have requested an explanation from President Moreno regarding his choice. D. Senensieb, along with C. Rodriguez, stated for future reference that any academic department that submits names in rank order for hiring should remember that the ranking may be overridden by the president and therefore the department has to be able to live with any one of the choices submitted. D. Beaulieu agreed with the point and stated that no one on the panel disputed the president’s right to select any of the three. He stated that there were other reasons for the request. J. Hernandez stated that perhaps the faculty should submit an advisement as to what we would like to see accomplished by the new vice president. There is no news about whether R. C.’s vacated dean position will be filled.
      
   2. Faculty Hiring: President Moreno has agreed to fill seven new faculty positions for the coming year: He chose the first seven from the list submitted to him last November by the Academic Senate. The positions are Mathematics (2), Women’s Physical Education, AJ - Fire Technology, Psychology, Chemistry, and English. This is in addition to the 21 positions approved for the current year. Ten have been filled so far; the rest will be filled by fall. Eight weeks will be required for recruiting. D. Senensieb stated that the Joint Hires Committee should always complete the exercise annually of recommending faculty hires, even if none are allowed. A. Immerblum concurred, pointing out that retirements that occur at the end of the school year will affect the next year’s needs.
2. Budget Committee Report: Tabled.
   
3. Facilities Committee Report: Tabled.
    

1. Constitution Revision Proposals: A. Samad distributed a draft of proposed changes (presented in red) in the Senate Constitution, noting that it has not been revised since 1995 although the college has changed a lot and the faculty has grown significantly. One pressing, but possibly controversial, issue is the question of representation in the Senate. Three issues on representation will be addressed in the proposed changes to the constitution: (1) disparity in size between large and small departments, (2) part-time representation on Senate; and (3) student representation. The Senate also needs to put into practice reference to a substantive by laws document, particularly with respect to consistency in the election of officers and department representatives and establishment of clear committee structures. Anthony, supported by several senators and guests, recommended reconvening the Constitution Committee which has not met since the fall of 2001. K. Daar stressed the need for all faculty, not just senators, to have an opportunity to serve on the committee. The committee will report back in one month. A. Immerblum asked that the committee come up with an estimated total number of representatives in the restructured senate as proposed in the draft constitution. K. Daar said the proposed restructuring would add an additional seven department representatives (a number she later requested to be revised because of an error in calculation). L. Chang recommended that the committee consider that disciplines, rather than departments, have representation. J. Ishino asked that Anthony circulate the draft to all faculty. D. Senensieb commended Anthony for a well written document. He then cited some history of the previous attempt to revise the constitution, stating that a great deal of research was completed to identify many alternative models of representation. A. Immerblum stated that if we all move into the process of revision with a sense of compromise, we can be successful with the process and the outcome. D. Beaulieu stated that the Senate Exec will determine a process for selecting and advertising the committee.
   
2. Status and Membership of Campus Committees: K. Daar distributed the first draft of a list of campus committees with membership rosters. Noting that the list was based on existing but incomplete information, she asked for corrections as departments review the document. Involvement by more faculty on committees is desirable. While compiling the list Karen “guesstimated” that approximately 45 percent of faculty are involved in committees (exclusive of AFT). However, Karen does not want to be held to this percentage as it will change as more complete information becomes available. Committees listed as “not active” need to be revisited for need. New committees have been formed and need to be identified. J. Hernandez stated that we need to move in the direction of establishing more predictable schedules for committee meetings. We have a number of people who serve on more than one committee, which makes it difficult to schedule meetings. Also meetings should not be scheduled across two class scheduling blocks.
   
3. Advisories for Non-English Transfer Courses: K. Daar distributed (for information purposes only) a document identifying the departments that have indicated a desire to have an advisory of English 60’s completion for their courses (also identified in the document). Karen is awaiting a Senate recommendation regarding the approval of the list. As part of the process, the Senate is waiting for recommendations from the small ad hoc committee being set up by Social Sciences Department at the Senate’s request to review the issue of the advisory and other remediation issues. She will also submit the list to Chairs Counsel and to the Education Planning Subcommittee. Once a decision is made, she will submit the list to the Curriculum Committee for approval.