Evidently, the IVC Academic Senate cabinet won't agendize whether IVC should support Saddleback faculty's "shared governance" resolution

Cabinet "determination": Senators will
not consider the question of supporting
the SC Ac. Senate resolution

     Back on March 5, a colleague at Saddleback College emailed me about a resolution recently approved by the Saddleback College Academic Senate (i.e., the faculty). Here it is:

   Whereas, Commencement is an important event for all members of the Saddleback College community…, and
   Whereas, the College Commencement Committee includes representatives from all of these groups to ensure that their voices are heard in planning this ceremony, and
   Whereas, the principle of shared governance is that all constituent groups should have a real role in the decision-making process, and
   Whereas, President Burnett’s decision in 2011 to override the Commencement Committee’s unanimous vote to offer a moment of silence instead of an invocation in that year’s ceremony is inconsistent with the principle of shared governance, and
   Whereas, such top-down decision making has repeatedly caused problems for our College in the Accreditation process,
   Therefore, be it resolved, that
   The Saddleback College Academic Senate affirms that the College’s Commencement Committee is the best group to decide whether or not to include an invocation at the annual Commencement ceremony … [and] The Commencement Committee as a whole should be explicitly charged with making this decision and their decision should be final, …And, … This should go into effect beginning with the 2012-2013 academic year, as an invitation for a speaker to deliver an invocation has already been issued for the 2012 Commencement ceremony.

     The colleague wrote:

… I’m not 100% sure how the decision to invite a Rabbi for the invocation this year was made….
…Do you think there’s any chance that IVC’s Senate would consider a resolution backing up ours?
…Be aware that we tried to keep the focus on shared governance and not on the prayer issue itself….

     I wrote back: “I read the resolution and it looks great. Yes, I think we can get the IVC senate on board, as long as we don't just give it to the Senate President….”
     Normally, our senate meets every two weeks, and the cabinet meets on the off weeks to put together the agenda for the next meeting. So, on Thursday of the 8th, hours before what I assumed was the cabinet’s biweekly “agenda” meeting, I wrote the Senate cabinet:

     I request that we agendize the following item for the upcoming meeting of the IVC Academic Senate Rep Council: whether our senate should support SC Academic Senate's recent resolution re President Burnett's action to ignore or overturn the SC Commencement Committee decision re a prayer at commencement.
. . .
     Friends at Saddleback College tell me that, last week, the SC Academic Senate passed a resolution in response to President Burnett's action of overriding the decision by the Commencement Committee regarding whether there would be a prayer or invocation at SC Commencement. Here is that resolution….[see above]
. . .
     I'm told that President Burnett has already arranged to have a rabbi give the prayer.

—Senator Roy Bauer, Humanities and Languages

     A few minutes later, IVC Academic Senate President Lisa Davis Allen wrote me: “Roy, I will bring it to the cabinet. The agenda for the next meeting has already been set due to spring break. —L” (Note: Spring break was the week of March 11.)
     I also heard from another cabinet member, who wrote me to say “I support this” for reasons echoing the Saddleback senate's reasoning.
     I responded: “LDA has already responded that this [item] can't be agendized for the next meeting because the agenda has already been done—something about the Spring Break.”
     The cabinet member then responded, indicating surprise that it had already been decided that my item was not to be included on the agenda. They said they would themselves request the item formally.
     I didn’t hear back.
     The item didn’t make it to the agenda.
     And so, a week after the March 22 senate meeting, I requested yet again that the matter be agendized (for I was never told whether my item had been discussed by the cabinet; I assumed it hadn't been). LDA responded by writing: “Cabinet will consider it today when we create the 4-5-12 agenda.”
     But then, again, I was never informed what the cabinet had decided, if anything.
     So, on April 12, prior to the senate’s cabinet meeting, I once again wrote the senate cabinet, “asking that this matter [i.e., whether we should support the Saddleback College Ac. Senate resolution] be agendized for the next meeting.”
     I soon got a response:

Roy,
     Your agenda item request concerning Saddleback Commencement plans has been considered by the IVC Academic Senate cabinet. The item will not be placed on the Senate Rep Council agenda because the cabinet has determined that it is not an IVC issue or a district issue, but rather a Saddleback College internal issue addressing their commencement plans.
     —Lisa

     When this "determination" occurred—I have no idea. No one has informed me.
     And since when is an administrator's act of blowing off shared governance at Saddleback College not an IVC issue? If Saddleback’s Burnett can do it, then IVC’s Roquemore can do it too.
     Good Lord do we ever need new leadership of the IVC Academic Senate.

Academic Senate sends "resolution" to BOT recommending that the Utt Library be renamed

     Upon perusing the agenda for Monday's BOT meeting, I happened upon this letter to the Board from Saddleback College Academic Senate President Dan Walsh with a senate resolution recommending that the "James B. Utt Memorial Library" be renamed. (I found it under the governance groups' "reports" section of the agenda.) (See the letter below.)

     The resolution, evidently passed in November, notes that "the building was never officially named through any action by the SOCCCD Board of Trustees."

     The key "whereas" is this one:

Whereas ... James B. Utt repeatedly made disparaging racial remarks and voted against both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, in contradiction to the stated Saddleback College values of collegiality and inclusiveness....

     The recommended new name? —The "Saddleback College Library and Learning Center."

     Catchy.

     Is Walsh asking that the matter be agendized? Perhaps he is hoping that can be avoided.

     The senate better hope that Fuentes isn't paying attention to all this. But I'm sure he is.

     I don't see Fuentes sitting still for this. Even in his diminished state.

     Expect fireworks.

Let's hold their feet to the fire

"I've got a question"

     The Irvine Valley College Academic Senate meets today.
     Our senate has a proud history, as you know. For instance, just a few years ago, IVC’s Senate, along with Saddleback’s, took the district to court regarding Mathur & the Board’s obnoxious unilateral changes to the faculty hiring policy, contrary to the plain language of the law.
     That we, an Academic Senate, litigated was unprecedented. The process entailed many stages, many ups and downs, and took years. We stuck with it. And we prevailed. Big time. Our rights and the rights of senates throughout the state were restored.
     OPENNESS. One of the things I always loved about the old battlin' IVC senate was the open nature of the communication between Senators and the Senate leadership. At Senate meetings, a senator would never get the sense that he or she wasn't being told what was really happening. Everything was laid out in the open for all to see—albeit some of this openness required, um, body language. (Wendy G. deserves much of the credit for this level of openness—and, of course, for leadership re the aforementioned litigation.)
     In the last couple of years, however, things have changed at the IVC Academic Senate.
      I want to focus on one of those changes.
     Nowadays, during our biweekly Rep Council meetings, there are two groups in the room: the senators and the cabinet, a manifestly tight-lipped bunch. It seems pretty clear that the “new” Senate Prez sometimes* tells her cabinet that, once the decision is made (in cabinet), everybody’s got to be behind it 100% and to not undermine it.
     At times, this stricture obviously makes some cabinet members uncomfortable. Their eyes communicate loudly: “I’d love to say something now but I just can’t!”
     Really? You can’t be open about the pros and cons of whatever-it-is? Frankly, I don’t know why cabinet members put up with this rule, whatever it is. Most of them were around during the glory days, when things were very open, and the senate nevertheless managed to keep administrators’ feet to the fire.
      The “new” Academic Senate’s less-than-transparent ways have bred distrust. “It” does things—the recent opening of the CAFÉ (only full-time faculty invited!) is a good example—that seem wrong and foolhardy. One awaits an explanation. There is silence.
     We’ve got enough of that coming from college administration, which, nowadays, does as it pleases with impunity and without justification or explanation.
     Let's hold their feet to the fire.

     (I should mention that I have been a senator—and at times a senate officer—for many years. This semester, however, I am on sabbatical. —RB aka BvT)

Agenda items of note (Meeting in BSTIC 101; 2:00 p.m.):

Item 4 - Senate Approval of Curriculum for 2012-2013 Catalog
Item 5 - Program Reviews 2011-2012
Item 7 - Board Policies and Administrative Regulations
Item 9 - ACCJC Recommendation Response Report
Item 10 - Full Time Tenure-Track Faculty Hiring Priority List Process
Item 12 - IVC and ATEP
Item 13 - SLO Coordinator and Liaison
Item 14 - Faculty Contract

MEANWHILE...

College professor allegedly led motorcycle gang, drug ring (LA Times)

A Cal State San Bernardino professor who allegedly led a chapter of the Devils Diciples motorcycle gang was charged Thursday with heading up a methamphetamine drug ring that involved several other dealers. [Updated at 1 p.m.: The motorcycle gang intentionally misspells "disciples" in its name, as can be seen in the jackets above.] ¶ Stephen Kinzey, a 43-year-old professor of kinesiology, is considered a fugitive and is being aggressively sought by authorities, Sheriff Rod Hoops said at a morning news conference at sheriff’s headquarters in San Bernardino. Nine others involved in the drug ring have been arrested since Friday, he said….

*A comment by a member (or former member) of the cabinet suggested that I needed to be more precise about my meaning here. (So I added this word.) I do not suppose that LDA in general demands cabinet member tight-lippedness. My point is that, evidently, at times, she has asked for that. If so, it is enough to make my point about openness and transparency. That is, in my view, this should never (or nearly never) be asked or demanded of cabinet members.

The MRC, the CAFÉ, and the IVC Academic Senate

     Some readers seem obsessed with the factoid that the soon-to-open “Center for the Advancement of Faculty Excellence” (CAFÉ) will be located in the space once occupied by the MRC (the “Media Resources Center”). Some seem to find in this fact evidence of a plot (by faculty? Obama?) to replace the MRC with a “faculty lounge.” That is an incompetent inference.
     Like all Schools at IVC, the School of Humanities and Languages has two senators: I am one of them; the other is my colleague MH. The two of us take turns providing Senate meeting notes to all School members. What follows are all the notes I could find re the CAFÉ:

Jan 6 Academic Senate Meeting:

IVC Faculty Teaching/Excellence Center – Lisa [Davis Allen] had an idea and has full support from [VPI] Craig [Justice]. The concept is a space, a home, for faculty to gather, to be trained, with cabinets, house text books, journals, a place for colleagues to talk, a place to explore and test new software and technology, a place to do grant writing, – all things that relate to excellence in in teaching – a place to house people, technology , and support all in one place. We would be able to go into a space/place and meet with peers, discuss teaching, problems, strategies. It would be wide open. A morale booster of sorts. [MH]

Jan 20 Academic Senate Meeting:

FACULTY EXCELLENCE CENTER. Item 16 concerned the “IVC Faculty Excellence Center,” a scheme evidently sunshined during the [Jan 6] general assembly meeting during inservice week (aka oblivion). I missed that. This “center” sounded harebrained to me: mentoring and training and gadgetry and brown baggery, etc. I asked LDA how we can justify opening a new center at a time of huge budget cuts. She declared that this thing wouldn’t cost much. Plus it would be a tangible way that administrators could express their respect for faculty.
     (Somebody whispered to me, “it’s a lounge.”)
     When we voted on it, I voted yes (reluctantly), but one person voted no (Mirriam C of Math). Evidently, this thing is going forward, like new Coke. Picture Michael Jackson, dancing and singing, on fire. [RB]

Feb 3 Academic Senate Meeting:

IVC FACULTY TEACHING/EXCELLENCE CENTER: CAFÉ (Center for the Advancement of Faculty Excellence) is moving forward with the support of the President and Vice President. [MH]

Feb 17 Academic Senate Meeting:

Strategic Planning and Budget Development – … CAFÉ (Center for Academic Faculty Excellence – the idea has be[en] sunshined at the AFTPC [the Academic, Facilities and Technology Planning Committee]– they seemed to like the idea and will consider it over the next few weeks before their next meeting to see what space can be used…. [MH]

March 3 Academic Senate Meeting:

Re Strategic Planning/Budget Development: LDA reported chirpy news about the “CAFÉ,” i.e., the faculty “excellence center” initiative. Administration, she says, still supports the idea (namely, a center or lounge for faculty). I have expressed skepticism, especially in view of new budget realities. I am hoping that, as this initiative develops, we can at least steer it towards benefiting part-timers in some way. [RB]

March 24 Academic Senate Meeting:

There was nothing new to report re Strategic Planning and Budget—e.g., no news regarding our push … for a faculty lounge called CAFÉ. [MH]

April 7 Academic Senate Meeting:

Strategic Planning and Budget Development … CAFÉ (Center for Academic Faculty Excellence) – The go-ahead has been given and there is a place holder for a spot during flex week for an open house. [MH]

April 21 Academic Senate Meeting:

COUCH AND FACULTY ENVIRONMENT (CAFÉ). … LDA … noted that plans for the CAFÉ … are being finalized and she fully expects the scheme to be accepted and whatnot. (Part-timers: my advice is this: when CAFÉ is built, take it over immediately. Lay claim to it. Never let it go.) (Actually, the CAFÉ is supposed to be some sort of faculty “excellence” center. I’m inclined to think it will have little to do with “excellence.” Excellent bullshit maybe.) [RB]

May 5 Academic Senate Meeting:

Strategic Planning and Budget Development … CAFÉ (Center for Academic Faculty Excellence) –The Café will be housed in the MRC (the computer center in the BSTIC building with the metal door and all the windows). This has been agreed to by all parties involved. It will be a multifunctional space that includes a conference area, which can be rented out. [MH]

     —Observe that the CAFÉ initiative was never linked to the MRC—not until May, i.e., three and a half months after the vote to proceed with the CAFÉ concept. As far as I know, the decision to place the CAFÉ in (part of) the MRC space reflected, not a plot or scheme to replace the MRC with a faculty center, but simply the fact that the MRC space became available and it was judged (by "all parties," evidently) to be suitable for the CAFÉ. (Frankly, many of us didn't know what the MRC was. We certainly weren't aware of any roiling issue concerning it.)

COMMENTS:

Anonymous said...

     Look, the CAFÉ is a great idea, I suppose. But what happened to the MRC? Is it being relocated? Will it share a common space with the CAFÉ? Is it no more? Is it being absorbed into other labs? Was there ever a discussion in the Senate about this? If not, why not?
     Given the history of the lack of transparency at IVC and the District—a major theme in this blog—, the fate of the MRC should at least raise a question. I don't assume there was a plot. I just want to know how that space became available and why. That is a valid question. And I don't expect you, BvT, to know the answer to that question. And, obviously, you don't. But, someone out there must know what happened. Is there anyone out there among the Dissent readership who knows what happened to the MRC? (Believers in UFOs, Bigfoot, or the Tea Party need not answer.)
—10:01 AM, August 11, 2011

Anonymous said...

     Interesting...It appears that part-time faculty are excluded from the CAFÉ, at least they are not mentioned on the invitation. This CAFÉ business more and more reeks of pretentious, elitist snobbery!
—11:24 AM, August 11, 2011

NOTE: I seem to recall that, during senate discussions of the CAFÉ, Lisa Davis Allen was very clear that the center is for all faculty, adjuncts included. —BvT

NOTE: On the other hand, when I looked more carefully at the flier for the CAFÉ opening, it does indeed specify "full-time" faculty. That is a bad mistake. I hope it is a mere error, that it is not indicative of what is to become of the CAFÉ. —BvT