Dissent 45
February 29, 2000
SAMPSON CONTRA FACULTY: January 24, 2000, Board Meeting
[transcripts by Roy Bauer]
Discussion of item
22: the Chancellor’s initiative to alter the
“delegation of authority” agreement
The reason why I brought this forward is
that I believe there’s confusion in the district about what shared governance
means, what the law states, and what our board policy means. This was brought
to my attention at the meeting at which the board requested a plan from the
administration on a soccer program—a potential intercollegiate soccer
program—and the response related to this policy, and the response was that the
board did not have authority to make such a request. I believe that that is
incorrect, but it does stem from this policy and it needs to be reviewed.
I had discussed this with the governance groups at the Chancellor’s
Cabinet and have distributed [it?] to the system for review and would like to
request that the board authorize me to enter into discussions with the academic
units about a potential change in this policy. I would then bring back to the
board the results of those conversations and discussions and be able to
articulate to you the positions of the academic senate.
I think there are arguments on all sides of this issue, which I would
like to explore with the senates and also perhaps with the state chancellor’s
office. The issue really relates to the delegation of authority, and that
begins with the legislature, which delegates to you responsibility for
approving and managing and directing all of the educational programs of the
district.
The issue is first of all, whether you can delegate that entire
authority to another group, and, secondly, did this policy in fact do that? And
we need to explore those.
Trustee Wagner asks why discussions of the shared governance issue
should be thought to necessitate a change of policy or discussion of that sort
of action.
CHANCELLOR: The problem was, when I tried to discuss this in the
Chancellor’s Cabinet, it was as the Chancellor, and the board had not
authorized me at the time to do it. And so the discussion was both not on point
and I don’t think taken very seriously. The reason for my request, my bringing
it to the board and requesting that you ask me to do this is, then, when I go
out, I have authority that you have requested that I discuss with the senate
these issues, and I believe I could get a better response.
Trustee Padberg asks the two senate presidents to “comment.
In her remarks, Anne Cox takes issue with the Chancellor’s
characterization of the position of the Saddleback Academic Senate. The senate
has never stated that the Board does not have the right of final approval of
curriculum, programs, etc., says Anne. Further, the senate’s response to the
soccer proposal was not a rejection of soccer.
Our primary objection, says Anne, was that there is a long-standing
process in place concerning curriculum development, and curriculum is among the
ten items specified in 2100.1 and in state law that delegate both
responsibility and authority to the senates. (See pp. 7-8.) The board approves,
but it is the faculty that is to be relied upon primarily.
In his remarks, Peter Morrison states that the IVC Academic Senate has
no objection to the request, understood only as a request to discuss the board
policy with the object of overcoming differences.
Trustee Frogue alludes to the view of
some trustees that the “whole idea” of shared governance is dubious. He accuses
someone—unnamed—of hypocricy. Suddenly, he attacks the academic senates. Senate
elections, he says, have been “fraught with irregularities.” He says he wants
open hearings concerning shared governance.
Wagner refers to the joint academic senate meetings that occurred
earlier in January (see Dissent 41).
He says he is having trouble finding the problem with the policy. The issues or
problems, he says, do not seem “substantive.” He says he will support the
chancellor’s request in view of the need for discussion and the apparent
disagreements between the chancellor and the faculty.
Trustee Lang says he can’t support the request. The policy is already
fairly clear. By pursuing this matter, we are, he says “destroying the fabric
of collegiality.”
Trustee Fortune says she supports the recommendation. She says the
policy is “fraught with ambiguity,” and refers to the many instances in which,
she says, the senate has tried to tell the board what to do.
Trustee Williams supports the request.
Trustee Milchiker objects to the wording of the request, for it speaks
of meetings between the chancellor and the senate “to change” the policy. We
need to strike “to change,” she says, since, presumably, we are not proceeding
with the idea that 2100.1 will necessarily be changed. She motions to amend the
item, and this is 2nded by Lang. The motion to amend fails on a 5/2 vote, with
student trustee Kalena supporting the amendment.
Milchiker describes the origin of the policy. She says she would
support the request if the words “to change” were deleted. She suggests that
one must rely on experts in areas in which one has little familiarity. The
faculty are the experts regarding curriculum development, etc.
The Chancellor indicates his desire to respond to Milchiker and Lang:
CHANCELLOR: What I’d like to do is respond to that and to trustee Lang
because of the apparent misperception that we intend not to rely primarily upon the advice of the academic senates. I
presented to you the potential changes that I would like to see in this policy,
and the policy is left that we rely primarily on the academic senates in those
10 areas. That would still be exactly what we would do. Our problem is with the
delegation of authority, which goes beyond state law, which I would like to
align with state law, and secondly that the “rely primarily” areas are wrapped
in language that suggest that it’s a mutual agreement.
This is a very complex issue because the state gave authority to you to
either rely primarily or reach mutual agreement. And what you did is you said
we’ll “rely primarily,” but the whole thing is a mutual agreement—creates
confusion about what shared governance really means because what we hear is,
“Oh, you can’t change that ‘cuz you delegated that to us; unless we agree, you
can’t change it.” But the policy says, “we will rely primarily.”
And so there is no intent to change the status of the academic senate
with regard to their advising you and you relying on their advice. There is an
attempt to change that little [searches for the right word] flip that creates the imagery that
everything is a mutual agreement—not “rely primarily.”
(Fortune calls for the question. The vote is taken; the item
passes.)
