Here we go again: the board is determined to violate Title 5 (AUDIO FILES)

As you know, Title V requires that boards delegate authority to the Academic Senate(s) in 10 specified areas. Reflecting that aspect of law, the board has adopted Board Policy 2100.1.

Here's the part of BP 2100.1 that concerns "planning":

…[I]t is the policy of the Board of Trustees that there shall be appropriate delegation to the college academic senates of responsibility for and authority over academic and professional matters. Regarding such matters, the Board of Trustees…Will rely primarily upon the advice and judgment of the academic senates in accordance with processes of collegial consultation as defined below….

Academic and professional matters upon which the Board of Trustees will rely primarily upon the advice and counsel of the academic senates include: …Processes for institutional planning….

[But what does “rely primarily” mean?]:

…Primary reliance upon the advice and counsel of the academic senates means that the Board of Trustees and/or its designees will accept the recommendations of the academic senates regarding academic and professional matters as itemized above, and will act otherwise only in exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons.

If a recommendation of the senate is not accepted, the Board of Trustees or its designee will promptly communicate its reasons in writing…Such explanation will convey the "exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons" that necessitated the action in question.

The upshot: unless there are (explicitly specified) "exceptional circumstances" (for which there is a specified protocol), the board must "accept the recommendation of the academic senates" regarding "Processes for institutional planning...."

Please note that the Board Policy/Title 5 does not give the Academic Senates the role of "institutional planning." Rather, it gives the Academic Senates the role of determining the process according to which planning will occur. As Wendy puts it (in the audio post below), the Academic Senates' role is to "plan the planning."

Well, if you've been reading this blog, you know that the Chancellor has developed and established a new district planning process. He has done so unilaterally--without bothering even to consult the Senates.

That is, he has illegally taken over the Academic Senates' job.

The Academic Senates immediately alerted the Chancellor to this problem, but the Chancellor did not withdraw the process.

At its March 2 meeting, the IVC Senate acted to request "that the Chancellor immediately discontinue implementation of the illegitimate District Plannign Process or the Academic Senate will consider filing a Minimum Conditions Complaint with the office of the State Chancellor." (From minutes.)

Again, the senate presidents met with Mathur and made the above request on behalf of the senates. He responded by informing the Senates that he would not rescind the new planning process.

At its March 23 meeting, the IVC Academic Senate acted to pursue the Minimum Conditions Complaint, as per the March 2 action.

At that meeting, President Wendy G asked that the senate act, not to file, but to "explore," the complaint. Senators rejected that advice. (Listen below.)

Senators decided to pursue the complaint with the idea that, should the board/Chancellor rescind or withdraw the planning process, the senate would immediately cease the "minimum conditions complaint" process.

At the March 27 meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees, during public comments, Wendy explained what the IVC Senate had decided. She again asked the district to desist.

Board President Dave Lang responded by stating, irrelevantly, that planning is not only within the Academic Senates' "provenance." The board gets to participate in planning, too.

This, of course, is not the issue. The issue is that it is the role of the Academic Senates to develop and define the planning process. It is not the district's role.

Further, Lang expressed disappointment that the senates had decided to go running to complain to an outside party.

Clearly, the senates had done no such thing. On the contrary, they had repeatedly asked the district to recognize their error and to simply withdraw the process.

Please listen to the audio files below:

AT THE MARCH 27 BOARD MEETING:

Wendy's remarks; Margot L cedes her time (about 4.5 minutes):

Lang's response (1 or 2 minutes):

AT THE MARCH 23 IVC SENATE MEETING:

These clips are brief:

Wendy requests that the senate "explore," not file, the complaint:

Senators disagree. It's time to file:

Senators: We'll withdraw the complaint as soon as the district withdraws the process

The action is taken: