Academic Senate

Document Sample
Academic Senate Powered By Docstoc
					Approved 7-14-2010
Meeting Minutes for Wednesday, May 12, 2010
West Campus, BC 214, 3:00 – 5:00 pm

Members Present: Ignacio Alarcón (President), Barbara Bell, Cindy Bower, Stan Bursten, Gary Carroll,
Monica DiVito, Esther Frankel, Jack Friedlander, Tom Garey, Atty Garfinkel, David Gilbert, Kathy
Molloy, Marcy Moore, David Morris, Kenley Neufeld, Dean Nevins, Kathy O’Connor, Ana María Ygualt,
Oscar Zavala
Members Excused: Armando Arias, Steve DaVega, Stephanie Durfor
Guest(s): Elizabeth Bowman, Susan Broderick, Jim Chesher, Jim Doohan, Zac Estrada (The Channels),
Adam Green, Doug Hersh, Gail Reynolds, Diane Rodriguez-Kiino, Jan Schultz, Marilynn Spaventa, Laurie
Vasquez, Mike Young

1.0    Call to Order
       1.1 Public Comments – no request received
       1.2 Approval of Agenda – so approved w/added action item 5.2
       1.3 Approval of Minutes, May 5, 2010 w/IA/Bezemek letters
M/S/C To approve the meeting minutes of May 5, 2010 (Bursten/Carroll) 1 abstention

2.0      Information
         2.1 Academic Senate Summer Meeting will Be Held July 14, 3:00 – 5:00 pm
Ignacio Alarcón announced the summer senate meeting will be held Wednesday, July 14, in the Business
Communications Building (BC 214), 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
         2.2 Congratulations to Atty Garfinkel on Being Elected President of SSCCC’s
             Region 6 for the Year 2010 – 2011
Ignacio Alarcón announced that in addition to being elected chair for Region VI, Atty will also serve as
student President on the Community College Higher Education Commission and Atty will also be SBCC’s
20010-2011 Student Senate President.
         2.3 A Big Thank You to Outgoing Senators: Monica DiVito, Kathy Molloy, Marcy
             Moore, Ana María Ygualt, Oscar Zavala. Welcome Incoming Senators: Susan
             Broderick, Gail Reynolds, Jan Schultz, Lou Spaventa
Ignacio announced the names of the newly elected senators, some were in attendance, and then he thanked
the senators whose terms have ended for their service and participation. Tom Garey added that Steve
DaVega was reelected to serve as Second Senator for the Fine Arts Division.

3.0      Action
         3.1 BP 4022 and AP 4022 Sabbatical Leaves Policy and Procedures (pg. 20-25)
M/S/C Move to approve BP 4022 and AP 4022 Sabbatical Leaves Policy and Procedures (Frankel/Nevins)
         3.2 BP 4490 Academic Title Procedure (pg. 26)
Kenley Neufeld said he wanted to update his last Liaison report, in particular his response to a question
David Morris asked about the opinion of AP members on the OR vs AND statement regarding Emeritus
Faculty status. At the time Kenley said that he sensed there was not consensus on the language. That was
not a correct statement. That answer, Kenley said, was based on a meeting that he had attended. However,
AP met again, discussed this in further detail and were unanimous in the draft they sent to the Senate.
Kenley said he is changing the statement he made at the last Senate meeting because he, as AP Liaison,
did not want to misspeak AP‟s sentiments on this matter.

Ignacio said, what we have before us today is not what Academic Policies Committee proposed. What AP
has proposed is diametrically opposite to what is on the agenda today in terms of how retired faculty are to
be recommended for emeritus status. AP recommended using the OR statement for advancement of a
retiree to emeritus status: Department Chair OR Dean OR Executive Vice President. The Senate had
previously recommended using the AND statement, and this is what is in version put forward today.
Minutes 5-12-2010                                                                            Page 1 of 14
Academic Senate Meeting
 Approved 7-14-2010

Kathy O‟Connor said it was Senate President Peter Haslund who recommended emeritus should be based
on something more than longevity, and that it shouldn‟t be granted automatically. Kathy suggested going
back to the drawing board and reworking the policy. Jack Friedlander added that AP‟s and the existing
policy focus on process, when maybe we should be looking at the more substantive issue. Maybe it should
be twenty years coupled with a resolution from the Academic Senate identifying individual
accomplishments to give a title more significance than just the title and a “Gold Pass.” This wouldn‟t
negate AP‟s proposal; it would just add something more substantive to the title.

Susan Broderick explained that the timeline begins from whenever you become a regular full time faculty
and technically that would be a minimum of 14 years of service to the college; that still may not be
considered enough but she wanted to clarify this. Susan said she could not speak for each member on AP
but the main concern was the AND vs OR. Susan said she thought that the committee would be fine with
changing the number of years, and that this was never the issue. We just didn‟t look at that because it was
already policy. The issue with the AND vs OR is that there are some departments where there is ongoing
discord and could make it difficult for someone who had some accomplishments in their service to the
college to be advanced to emeritus status. If the current department chair had an issue it might be a
problem with promoting a specific faculty to emeritus status. That was the key issue of making it an OR
rather than an AND. Ignacio said that Peter Haslund‟s point, when he brought this up to the Senate, was
that the department should have a primary role in promoting a faculty person to emeritus status. Ignacio
said that the AP proposal could potentially leave the department totally out of the loop. Susan believed the
Dean and EVP would want to consult with the department chair first, and not act independently. Stan
Bursten said that he understood the number of years requirement to be a minimum requirement. He said
that it seemed that for department chairs, deans and the EVP other accomplishments achieved could be
taken into consideration and that will discriminate between people who have been here a long time that
have not done anything special and people who have been here a short amount of time that have
accomplished a substantial amount of extraordinary work and have really contributed in a great way to the
college. So the ten year minimum seems reasonable. Stan also suggested changing “…emeritus status
shall be conferred…” to “may be conferred.” Jack expressed that using the AND version would mean that
everyone would have to give their input. Tom Garey asked if maybe the Academic Senate could also
recommend someone for emeritus. Ignacio reiterated that the gist of the new proposal would be to have
the department be the main source for a nomination for emeritus status. Marcy Moore asked about the
current policy and procedure. Jack said that this may not be a stated procedure, but that it is the way this
has occurred over the past 24 years: HRLA gets a list of retired faculty, they verify the ten years‟ service
and send a note to Jack asking if there is any problem with any of the individuals receiving the title of
emeritus. Once it is established that there are no issues, they are given emeritus status, and have their
name put in the catalog. Gary Carroll said this makes Jack be the bad guy and puts everything on his
shoulders. The presumption is everyone will be on the list unless the EVP says no. The new proposal
would turn it over to other people. Jack said the way it is now, an issue is so rare that he thinks this is a
non-issue. Gary Carroll added that then it seems to be only a rubber stamp. Jack agreed that this is the way
things were as of now.

David Morris suggested that we lift this from the procedure as written, approve the remainder of the
procedure and bring this up as an item for a separate discussion and then made a motion.
M/S To move that we extract the emeritus status paragraph and propose it as an individual item for
discussion at our next Senate meeting (Morris/Garey)

Dean Nevins said that he had a problem with this; if you slice out part of it, it‟s not the proposed
procedure anymore. I don‟t think we can do that. David Morris said we have an existing procedure; Jack
just described it. This would be the existing procedure. All we would be saying is we are not ready to
Minutes 5-12-2010                                                                             Page 2 of 14
Academic Senate Meeting
 Approved 7-14-2010
change the existing procedure. Leave it as status quo. Ignacio said that the only change would be to
eliminate the “Lecturer” designation, and use “Instructor” instead. Gary Carroll suggested removing the
comma in item “c”, so it reads: “c. Experience in summer school teaching and part-time continuing
education teaching do not apply to titles higher than that of Instructor”, and to remove both commas from
item “d”, so it reads: “d.     Sabbatical leave time and teaching experience at a school of nursing do apply.”
Gary asked if item f should be there at all. Jack suggested it could follow item “a.” Kathy O‟Connor suggested that
“f “ should be part of item “a” itself. The new item “a” would read: “a. Credit college teaching only will apply.
The number of units completed will be those approved by the Academic Policies Committee.”

Cindy Bower reported on her research about item “d”‟s reference to schools of nursing. She said it should
probably be removed because it refers to situations dating back to 1965 that have no relevance anymore.
The new item “d” would simply read: “d.       Sabbatical leave time applies.”

M/S/C To postpone action and bring an updated/reworked copy based on the suggestions/
recommendations that have been made (Neufeld/Carroll)

         3.3 ITC Proposal for District Computer Technology Provisioning Procedure
Laurie Vasquez explained that because the proposed changes were presented at the last DTC meeting of the
semester a vote would not take place until Fall 2010. Laurie said additions were made to the first
paragraph, and the last two paragraphs of the document are completely new with specific language to
represent the areas of specialization where a non-standard replacement configuration may be needed. Jack
Friedlander noted that where it states “In the event ITC and DTC cannot come to a resolution the request
will be forwarded to CPC and the Academic Senate for resolution” he said the Academic Senate is
represented on CPC so the unresolved exception requests should go to the Senate before going to CPC.
Kathy O‟Connor added that the goal is to have any situation resolved before CPC.

Determining the notification order of the exceptions memo; coordinating the procedure/process with what
is stated in the first paragraph; as well as typos and language and redundancies were discussed. A decision
needs to be made about which of the last two paragraphs should be used in the document or consolidate
both paragraphs. The first paragraph identifies exceptions for anyone, including labs, and the added
paragraphs were created to identify those departments with exceptions. Jack Friedlander suggested using
the term „Educational Programs department‟ when identifying where the exceptions were to be made. It
was also discussed where the document should be housed. Tom Garey suggested that it should be kept with
the refresh information.

 3.4     Elections
         (a1) Academic Senate Vice President 2010 - 2011
 Ignacio confirmed: by acclamation of senators, Kenley Neufeld was elected to be Academic Senate Vice
 President for Academic year F2010-S2011.
 M/S/C To nominate Kenley Neufeld for Academic Senate Vice President (Molloy/Nevins)
         (a2) Academic Senate – CPC Liaison 2010 – 2011
Ignacio explained the current Academic Senate liaison at CPC is Tom Garey. That position is open for
election every year. Tom Garey and Kathy O‟Connor have expressed their intention to run for this
position. Oscar wanted to hear a statement from each candidate. He said that this is a critical position,
particularly this coming year, given the challenges to categorical programs. He said he admired both Tom
and Kathy, and that he wanted to choose a person who knew the issues well and would voice the opinions
of faculty.

Tom Garey stated that either one of Kathy and him would offer continuity and great competence on the
issues. Tom added that Kathy already attends CPC meetings regularly and is well ingrained in the system

Minutes 5-12-2010                                                                                  Page 3 of 14
Academic Senate Meeting
 Approved 7-14-2010
as he himself is well ingrained in the system. Tom said that he didn‟t see a substantive difference. Kathy
O‟Connor said that she felt the same way. She said that Tom and her have been around a long time and
that she attends CPC meetings all the time and I enjoys it. Kathy said that CPC is a really important
committee on this College, with a lot of influence. Kathy said she felt she would do a good job
representing the faculty at CPC, as Tom does also. David Morris asked Kathy if she intended to continue
attending CPC even if she was not the representative elected by Senate. Kathy responded that this was not
a fair question, and that it should have no bearing on how senators voted.

Ballots were handed out and senators were asked to write the name of their candidate of choice on the
ballot and by a narrow margin Tom Garey was reelected to serve as Academic Senate liaison to CPC.

       (b) Approval of Dean Nevins as Karolyn Hanna’s Replacement on the
           Board Policies and Administrative Procedures Committee upon Karolyn’s Retirement
M/S/C To approve the appointment of Dean Nevins to serve on the BPAP committee (Neufeld/Garey)

4.0     Reports

        4.1 President Report

         4.2 CPC Liaison Report /IA Liaison Report (Tom Garey/Dean Nevins)
CPC has had no meeting since the Senate last met. Tom reported that the IA has put together their list of IA
Board members of the task group to discuss Article 13, and that Gary Carroll will be setting
up/coordinating meetings between the Senate and IA task group members. Tom said that his own
participation on the task group will be somewhat limited due to knee surgery this summer.

        4.3 Liaison Reports

                4.3.1 Armando Arias

                  4.3.2 Kenley Neufeld
 Kenley Neufeld reported that the Facilities Safety/Security and Parking committee met and that they
 received the injury report. To date, there have been reported: 3 classified and 4 faculty. All were due to
 slips and falls. The stadium project will be starting within a week. There is still a question of where the
 fence will go and whether or not the stadium seating will be open or not accessible. On Sunday, May 15
 there will be a semi-pro basketball game held in the Sports Pavilion. Kenley said the library has received
 calls asking where the Luria Press and Conference Center are located. There may be some confusion as
 time goes on with both facilities named Luria. All scheduling for the Luria Press and Conference Center
 will be done through the President‟s office. Ignacio added that CPC will be meeting in the Luria
 conference room beginning next academic year. Kenley said a study of the Medical Parking spots had
 been made and Security might be willing to open up some of the designated spots. Kenley will take to the
 committee the issues on skateboarders and the unhealthy bird droppings in the parking structure.

 Kenley reported P&R began reviewing Board Policy 4160 regarding adding/eliminating/changing
 instructional programs. P&R recommends that CAC also review BP 4160. P&R is also reviewing Board
 Policy 4560 which identifies college facilities priorities. For the Program Review process P&R plans to
 develop a glossary of definitions and parameters. This will be done in consultation with the
 Superintendent/President, the Executive Vice President and CPC. The result, with examples, should be
 beneficial for department chairs during the Program Review process. The templates for the Program
 Review are being reworked with the help of IT programmers.

Minutes 5-12-2010                                                                            Page 4 of 14
Academic Senate Meeting
 Approved 7-14-2010
 Kenley reported that AP began discussing/reviewing BP 2100 (Faculty Evaluation) and that this
 discussion would continue in the Fall.

                4.3.3 Kathy O’Connor
 Kathy O‟Connor reported that although CAC has wrapped up their work for the semester, a workgroup
 will continue to work on CurricUNET. Most importantly: if anyone should have any glitches or problems
 occurring in CurricUNET to please report them to her so that over the summer they can be worked out.
 On the curriculum submittal deadline: No final date has been set – an announcement will be made; the
 probable/most likely deadline for submittals will be during Inservice week.

         4.4 Partnership for Student Success (Kathy Molloy)
 Kathy Molloy said that a few people have talked to her about some misinformation that‟s coming out
 about the funding for programs in general and the use of the reserves. Kathy thinks it is important that
 Division Reps make it clear to their divisions that the only thing funded out of the reserves is the backfill
 for categorical programs. Whatever funding the readers and PSS received all came from the bookstore
 fund and there were already some existing funds for PSS through a supplement and from the Foundation.
 It seems to have caused some confusion and she wanted to make sure that everyone was clear on what
 has been funded and the source of the funds.

         4.5 EVP Report (Jack Friedlander)
Jack reported on the process and timeline for when departments could begin ordering routine equipment.
Jack reiterated what Tom had reported; that at the last meeting CPC took action and approved the resource
requests that were ranked “1” as well as the budget amount for the routine equipment requests that would
go into department budgets. Jack said that questions he has been getting from deans and department chairs
refer to when they would know how much money is actually in their budget for next year and when would
they be able to see a spreadsheet to confirm what items were or not approved by CPC? Jack said that by
mid June Leslie Griffin should be sending out a list of all approved resource request items. Departments
would not be able to order items until July 1. A unique number will be assigned to all the approved items
so that the resource requests can be tracked to our planning process. When departments get their 2010-
2011 budgets, these will show how much money was allocated to their routine equipment account.
Depending on the nature of the item(s) requested some money may be allocated to the department‟s
supplies account.

Ignacio added that P&R and ITC have several recommendations for the program review process.

Kathy O‟Connor asked about the email notification. The non-routine, facilities and new equipment were
put together in the same sentence. Will non-routine be separate from any new equipment money? Jack
said that everyone will get three spreadsheets: 1) Routine ongoing department budget 2) Spreadsheet so
departments can order beginning July 1; the hardware, software, and non routine equipment requests 3)
Facilities items, which are on the list now. You will know exactly which facilities items you have
requested. Anything going through facilities needs to be on the list. Kathy wanted to know if technology
hardware is going to go through the same replacement process we‟ve always had; that departments are not
going to have to be ordering hardware. Jack said yes, the list is for identification to let everyone know
what is there.
                 4.5.1 Title V Workgroup
Jack announced a Title V grant was being submitted, given the College’s eligibility as a Hispanic Serving
Institution. Cheryl Dettrick is our grant consultant and she is checking the federal website daily to find out
when they are formally going to announce the availability of these grants. When an announcement is made,
they give you 30 days to submit a huge proposal. We have been working on the structure/framework for
the grant and we’ve worked with the representatives from all the primary departments that will be
Minutes 5-12-2010                                                                              Page 5 of 14
Academic Senate Meeting
 Approved 7-14-2010
involved. The overall nature/target audience would be students who assess into Basic Skills or ESL classes.
The goal is to get them through those sequences within a two year period, because the longer they take the
less likely they are to complete. We have learned much through some pilot work done by Pam Guenther,
who is teaching Math 100-107 and has had tremendous success rates from students taking a year’s worth of
basic skills classes in one semester. Jared Hersh will be teaching Math 107-120, another accelerated course
in the Fall. An idea is to take that accelerated concept and apply it to English Skills through English 110.
These would be taken with other courses so students enroll in 12 or more units so they form these learning
communities for students to enroll for two or three semesters, depending on the level they assess into. For
students who have assessed but not enrolled in the right classes Student Services will be integrated into the
courses, especially pre-exploration and academic planning as well as Gateway tutoring. The idea is to have
a total immersion and have an impact so we are changing behaviors and getting students to college level
courses. There is no cost associated with establishing these learning communities. The grant will cover
faculty and staff training. The philosophy we are using is the four phase Career Development model;
students explore what is available, plan, follow up/track, and then transition from ESL and Basic Skills into
college level. If their goal is to transfer, the goal is to facilitate follow up with the transfer institution to
which they are applying, and if their goal is career technology education have a follow-up about their
transitioning to the right activities for jobs or careers.

Another aspect is, from the time students enter into their first course, to incorporate training and
assignments so they can know and learn how to use technology to be successful as a student for transfer or
employment. Training on social networking tools, on how to access information off the internet, and on
specific applications such as Word, Excel would give students those tools from day one. One-time money
will be going into our decision support system so we can get data on a daily basis on how students are
performing, to make sure they are following the advice they have been given on which courses to enroll in.

A meeting with Kathy Molloy, Priscilla Butler and other faculty was terrific with everyone working on
these concepts. Atty Garfikel said that, although this is not within the Student Senate’s purview, she would
like to listen in on the Title V workgroup’s discussions. Jack said that he agreed that students
representatives she should be involved. Jack offered to provide Atty with the information on grant.

Jack added that for the next few weeks he will be putting together the framework, meeting with the chairs
of each workgroup and based on the framework put a price tag on the things identified. For example the
Student Services workgroup identified about 27 different items.

                4.5.2 Distance Education Workgroup
Jack said the topic deserved some needed time and could wait until the summer senate.

                  4.5.3 Communication to Faculty Regarding HEOA (Posting Costs of Required
                        Textbooks, Supplements, Materials, Software for all Classes)
 Jack reported that deans are contacting those individuals that have still not given the required information
 to the bookstore for summer and fall. Starting in the fall the cost of all books and supplies and
 supplemental materials required for each class shall be listed on our website. All supplies that cost a
 minimum of $15.00 would need to be identified and listed. Items such as bluebooks, scantrons,
 notebooks and composition books that fall below the $15.00 minimum would not need to be listed. The
 definition of supplemental would be an item such as software, something a student would need to
 purchase if the student did not have the particular version being taught. Jack said he would send another
 email out to everyone explaining that they are now required to inform the bookstore of any and all other
 costs, not just textbooks, even if the required book or materials or supplemental items are to be purchased
 elsewhere. We are responsible for listing all such costs associated with a class, not just book fees. If used

Minutes 5-12-2010                                                                                Page 6 of 14
Academic Senate Meeting
 Approved 7-14-2010
 or rental books are available the bookstore will be responsible for getting all the associated information
 posted on the website.

5.0     Hearing/Discussion
        5.1 Center for Sustainability (Adam Green and/or Barry Tanowitz attend)
 Ignacio distributed the handouts and explained the green handout has some of Adam‟s emails from May
 5 to May 12; the blue handout is a letter from Barry Tanowitz; the white handout is a memo from
 President Andreea Serban.

 Jack Friedlander gave an overview of the handout that Andreea Serban sent. The memo is addressed to
 Ignacio and members of the Academic Senate. The first page is a summary. Andreea is not against the
 Center for Sustainability. She needs from Adam more specificity in the Center for Sustainability
 proposal, particularly on the goals and objectives to be achieved and the associated costs. Andreea also
 stresses the need to link the proposal to the mission of the college including the objectives of the college.
 Jack added that Marilynn Spaventa and he were working closely with Adam; that Adam has submitted
 proposals in the past but what Andreea is asking for is a greater degree of specificity in a format that she
 and the Foundation can use in its fundraising efforts. The rest of Andreea‟s handout gives the history of
 fundraising efforts and the financial statements for CFS. Adam‟s proposal is on the last page.

 Adam Green said that this was the first time he had seen the memo from Andreea to the Senate President
 and Senators. The background for the Center for Sustainability started as collaboration for a number of
 years largely by student interest and Chris Power, dean of Adult Ed. Adam said that on campus he had
 been doing it largely by piecemeal taking opportunities and finding ways of improving sustainability
 efforts. In 2007 Chris Power and Adam were co-directors when it was made an official formal Center for
 Sustainability, with the support of Jack, Marilyn and Superintendent/President John Romo. The deal was
 to institutionalize the concept of sustainability and to try and create an official program at the college that
 would show that this is a priority. The Center was awarded MacDougall Excellence Funds to get started.
 Those funds were used, in part, to generate grants. The challenge was how to write a detailed proposal for
 what we were going to do. About concepts of sustainability in our mission, we would initiate and support
 sustainability in the curriculum on our campus and the community. We had a broad scope to work. We
 were identifying ways to bring money to the college through grants and donations and use those funds to
 generate opportunities for the college. Where we have gained a lot of traction is through the strong
 connection with Adult Ed through public education lectures and workshops. Some of you may have
 heard of the Gunter Pauli event and the Paul Stamets lecture; both held this semester. Both gentlemen are
 world renowned as they bring in concepts of sustainability that truly inspire students. We have taken on
 campus projects, working with Julie Hendricks, Joe Sullivan, Toni Mendoza, Marc Sullivan and Gaspar
 Lomeli trying to work out ways in which we can be more efficient to decrease waste. We looked at green
 building and renewable energy. Adam reminded everyone that he called the first meeting with John
 Perlin from UCSB on the solar project, with Julie Hendricks and Pablo Buckelew. We got the ball
 rolling with the California Solar Initiative that had just started. Adam referred that he went to Board of
 Trustees meetings in support of the project and how he helped with the numbers so Joe Sullivan got on
 board and how that was the beginning of the solar photovoltaic system project. This was an example of
 taking opportunities and finding projects on campus. The community component started to take on more
 of a trend with the s‟Cool garden program that we are doing in partnership with the Orfalea Foundation,
 where we are actually installing gardens in elementary schools throughout the county. This is a one of a
 kind program in the country and will get a lot of good press for the college. We have student interns that
 are getting paid to install gardens in elementary schools. This is a life changing experience for our
 students. With the curriculum we were trying to instill the idea of sustainability curriculum. From early
 on, when Pablo Buckelew was head of the Construction Academy, Adam worked with him on a
Minutes 5-12-2010                                                                               Page 7 of 14
Academic Senate Meeting
 Approved 7-14-2010
 Department of Labor grant for $2.4 mil to green up the entire Construction Academy. We were not
 successful in the grant but this laid the groundwork for everything that has come since associated with the
 greening up of the Construction Academy, led by Patrick Foster. Adam talked about how he was interim
 chair for the Environmental Horticulture Program, and when Mike Gonella was hired they have since
 developed the Permaculture class and worked on a number of collaborative projects. We were lucky
 enough to have a personal friend of Adam‟s, Merryl Brown with the Weiss Foudation, provide the funds
 to do the One Planet faculty training program. Every year we have faculty from all over the campus.
 Diane Rodriguez-Kiino and Adam teach concepts of sustainability diversity and how to incorporate it
 into the curriculum. We have gone through two years with over twenty faculty in the program.

 We are hitting all of those different areas of our mission. For us to predict exactly how that is going to
 work in the future is somewhat difficult. We have ideas but often times we have to take opportunities
 with what foundations are looking for, what donors are looking for. To have someone like Gunter Pauli
 showing up and inspiring an entire community, has helped create an Eco Entrepreneurship program. Guy
 Smith, Melissa Crawford, Adam and Margie Bushman with Dean Spaventa are all working together to
 create a new program here for the college on Eco Entrepreneurship. This is a completely new program
 that would open doors for students all over the place. We had ideas about doing this but Gunter Pauli was
 the catalyst. So the point is, when do we exist as a center on campus? We‟re there looking and we were
 able to take advantage of this stuff. We are able to bring in these speakers when they are coming through
 town and rather than having to spend $10,000 to bring them here we can get them for a cut rate because
 they are already in town.

 In skimming the letter from President Serban, Adam Green said that it‟s been very hard to determine
 exactly what it is that she wants as a proposal. This is the first time he has heard that his proposal wasn‟t
 specific enough, and he wanted to add that it was submitted over a year ago. Adam expressed that he
 hadn‟t heard anything back since then so he assumed everything was okay. Adam said that he felt that I
 people understand basically what we‟re doing. Adam said he didn‟t know what has even been included in
 here, it‟s been so long since I‟ve looked at it. This seems to be just the recent proposal for the Eco
 Entrepreneurship idea/program. We have submitted what we have been doing and where we could go
 with different programs a number of times over the last several years. We‟ll be willing to try to develop
 things in more detail if that‟s what is required but this is the first time I have heard it had not been
 specific enough and to her liking. Basically what transpired was at the very beginning, at the initiation of
 the Center for Sustainability, there was a family trust; money that was donated to the college. They were
 unrestricted funds mind you, and Adam explained that he didn‟t want there to be any misconceptions
 about that. It was a couple that had passed away and they had left funds to the College in their will.
 Barbara Ben Horin, CEO of the Foundation wanted to honor them with the application of those funds, so
 she talked to the children, the son and daughter, and asked for some guidance as to where these funds
 should be placed. What the children said time and again is that their parents were environmentalists
 before it was fashionable. Barbara suggested that they would come to the campus where we have a
 program called the Center for Sustainability to have lunch with the director. The daughter and son loved
 the idea that the money was going toward the center. As a matter of fact four of my students were living
 on the sons‟ property, basically in a sustainable living situation, with a yurt and the whole nine yards.
 They loved the idea and that is why a chunk of that money was put towards the Center and it was
 basically to serve as the seed for an endowment. Going forward the priority given to the Foundation by
 President Romo did not include adding to the endowment. It was basically with money there that was
 added to the endowment and apparent that the endowment would not substantially grow in the near
 future. Recently, we are running out of unrestricted funds that we could use for bringing lecturers onto
 campus or taking advantage of opportunities or maintaining my coordinator so that we can write grants.
 Most of the grants that are written for the Center are identified by me or my coordinator or we help write

Minutes 5-12-2010                                                                              Page 8 of 14
Academic Senate Meeting
 Approved 7-14-2010
 them and work with Sheba Laser Lux, in the Foundation. If we don‟t have that coordinator it would be
 very hard to actually generate the money that runs the Center.

 A meeting that Marilyn Spaventa and Jack Friedlander had with the Superintendent/President was to
 open up that endowment to become spendable so that we could continue operating, and to maintain the
 coordinator. The result was President Serban‟s decision to allocate only $15,000 of the donors‟ funds,
 take the rest for other areas, and taking us off the priority list for the Foundation. Our challenge was, to
 have money taken away that we assumed we had and were banking on, to allow us to get through tough
 times. More importantly, this action took away the opportunity to raise any additional funds. This action
 simultaneously took a big chunk of our budget and our ability to raise funds in the future. We have some
 ongoing programs that are funded year after year. The s‟Cool Gardens program is potentially a multi year
 program, it could actually go ten years. The One Planet faculty training program is in its third and final
 year. Adam said that when working with donors, it has always been his understanding that we can‟t go
 and raise funds on our own, and that it has to go through the Foundation. If we‟re not a priority for the
 Foundation then we can‟t do that. So, if we can‟t raise funds and we are losing the bulk of our funds,
 we‟re stuck, we‟re done. Basically, we can continue our multi year programs but we will lose the
 Center‟s coordinator. We will lose our ability to find new funds, and so very quickly we are done. Adam
 said he replied via emails asking for reconsideration and President Serban‟s response was negative. That
 was the reason why Adam then sent an email to other faculty around campus that he has worked with and
 who have supported the CFS. Adam continued to emphasize how the Center for Sustainability is only
 becoming more relevant. Adam reminded the Senate about the ongoing situation of the oil spill in the
 Gulf, plus the trending to the entire transition of our economy towards more sustainable business
 systems. In quickly perusing President Serban‟s memo we see that she says that sustainability is now
 infused throughout components of the campus, almost as an implication that it‟s no longer needed. The
 question is: how did we get there? Was it there six years ago? Why is it there now? It‟s because of the
 work we‟ve been doing. Adam said that there is still a lot of work to be done. We have been successful
 in a lot of areas, but there is a lot that still needs to be done and a ton of opportunity and momentum is
 building. We are in a tough budget time, no doubt. Adam stressed that this is why we are not really
 asking for any additional funding out of the general fund. We are just asking for what is already in the
 Foundation and to allow us to just continue to go out and apply for funds and work with donors. This is
 basically what we are asking the Academic Senate to do, to support this request formally.

 Jack Friedlander asked everyone to look at Andreea Serban‟s memo. In the third paragraph of the memo,
 she mentions how she is supportive of CFS, and she identifies what is truly needed to make the Center
 for Sustainability a successful program to which donors would be willing to contribute: to have a
 specific plan for its goals and objectives. In the next to the last paragraph she mentions how $15,000 is
 allocated for 2010-11 to work on the curriculum portion of the proposal Adam has submitted (see last
 page of memo Appendix 2) and to work on a specific proposal/plan as noted above (in Andreea‟s memo
 paragraph 3). Jack said that the way he looked at it is that the door is now open to provide that. Jack said
 he was thinking out loud how to address this. Jack mentioned to Adam that while he may not be able to
 be concrete about what kind of opportunities will arise, because as he has explained they may change, he
 could give examples of specific opportunities that could be achieved. For example, we have had an
 amazing speaker series this year and we don‟t know who‟s going to be in town next that we could invite.
 If a donor or someone came up with some money to have someone speak at these workshops, we don‟t
 know that now. We can try to write proposal in a way that the Foundation could use it to say, here are
 examples that we now have of several opportunities. Jack said he thought that what Andreea is asking
 now is fair, and that it includes a significant positive statement from her.

 Tom Garey said he found Andreea‟s statements and action to be disingenuous when the surrogates of the
 donors did designate the program as a recipient of the funds, and that money has now been separated.
Minutes 5-12-2010                                                                              Page 9 of 14
Academic Senate Meeting
 Approved 7-14-2010
 Tom asked if the Senate some years ago voted this program to be a high priority of the college? Ignacio
 said that what the Senate voted on was the College & University Presidents' Climate Commitment
 statement where the college was to sign to this. This happened during the last year of John Romo‟s
 presidency and the proposal was not supported at the Board of Trustees level. Adam said that this is one
 of the other components of this and it‟s something the Academic Senate has heard before and also
 relevant to the discussion now. Leif Skogberg was a student here, who then became coordinator for the
 Center for Sustainability and went from there to a full time job at the City running the commercial
 recycling and a nice example of student success. Leif worked very hard to get the college to sign on to
 the Presidents‟ Climate Commitment. We were sent back. We went to the Board of Trustees and
 President Romo and he said to go to the college and get approval from the college. We spent a year
 working through the Student Body, Academic Senate, CPC. We went through everybody and got
 approval. Most of it was unanimous, although it wasn‟t unanimous at the Academic Senate. President
 Romo chose to use the fact that it wasn‟t unanimous at the Academic Senate to not push it forward.
 Ignacio said that John Romo had pushed it forward, after getting support from the Student Senate, the
 Academic Senate and CPC, but the Board of Trustees decided not to support this. Adam said his
 understanding was President Serban did not bring it forward. Ignacio reiterated that the proposal went to
 a study session of the Board of Trustees at the time of President Romo, and at that level the proposal was
 not supported. Adam then said that this proposal had gone through once already and had accumulated a
 lot of support, and then President Romo did not bring it forward while he was President, but waited until
 Andreea Serban came in. John Romo didn‟t want to sign on to something for another President. Ignacio
 repeated that the lack of support came from the Board of Trustees much earlier, by the end of John
 Romo‟s last year as president.

 Esther Frankel asked about the family that had created this endowment, that was seen to be supportive of
 the Center for Sustainability. About how much did the Center receive? Adam said the amount was
 $100,000, but the whole amount was $180,000 and that another chunk went to other areas. Adam said
 that his understanding was that the total of funds was currently about $89,500 due to the current
 economic situation. Esther asked if the Center was actually getting interest from the endowment. Adam
 replied that they were not getting any money off that. Esther asked about the past, about how much
 money have you received? Marilyn Spaventa and Adam said that the money just sat there, without being
 touched. We weren‟t receiving any money from this amount at the time. Esther said she wanted to
 confirm that they weren‟t getting anything from that donation. Adam said that the Center each year had
 been raising funds through other foundations. We had the Zero Waste program, the One Planet faculty
 training, we were bringing in money from different places.

 Esther said that, in summary, there was some money that was given to the Foundation with maybe an
 unwritten expectation that it might be used to support this program and the Center has never seen
 anything at all from it, from the beginning? Is that it? Adam said this was the case. The money came in
 right at the start of the Center for Sustainability and it was immediately put into an endowment; which
 meant we couldn‟t touch it. So the point was it either accumulated, the hope was you‟d add to it until it
 reached a point that it actually endowed the Center. But that wasn‟t happening and we made an argument
 a couple times through the years to just open it up and spend that money to create programs and maybe
 we‟ll generate more interest; this was the latest rendition of that. We always knew that money was there
 and we were banking on it. In the chance that either we were no longer priority for the Foundation and
 couldn‟t raise anymore funds, that would give us some funds to continue to function and create programs.
 This is the money from which a large percentage was taken away.

 Esther asked Adam approximately how much money a year the Center needed. She said she knew it was
 a tough question, but could he give an estimate: was it $20K or $100K or $500K? Adam said this would
 depend on the projects that we take on. At a minimum, we would need support for the half time
Minutes 5-12-2010                                                                            Page 10 of 14
Academic Senate Meeting
 Approved 7-14-2010
 coordinator, about $20K a year. Esther said that she was just looking for ballpark figures. Adam said that
 this was the minimum. Now, what we have thought about doing is a regional educational program that
 linked into City College AA degrees. We would actually link with businesses and local institutes for
 students to have internships. We would actually create a website; and a regional education program on
 sustainability. Esther expressed that this would be a specific project for the Center. Adam agreed and said
 that that‟s what this money would support. We were assuming that we would receive money to get
 project rolling and then could generate funds on its own. It would be a very attractive project and people
 would donate money for that. Adam said that he had been working with David Fortson of LoaTree.
 Adam said that David Fortson was the person responsible for putting on Earth Day together and that he
 was really supportive of what we‟re doing was going to put together a budget on how we might do this.
 We haven‟t done that yet because we weren‟t sure we‟d have enough funds.

 Kathy O‟Connor asked Adam, that according to memo the Center is going to get $12,183.00 as of this
 month. Adam responded that he receives 3 TLUs of release time to direct the Center. Kathy said that
 according to the memo he would get student intern money, coordinator money and travel and conference
 money. Marilynn Spaventa said that was the budget that was spent for this past year. Kathy O‟Connor
 continued to say that according to memo, Andreea is already willing to fund $15,000 for 2010-2011.
 Adam, Marilynn and Jack confirmed this. Kathy said that, in brief, the Center was going to get $15,000
 from endowment, plus the 3 TLUs that you get to be the coordinator. Kathy asked about use of the funds.
 She said that curriculum is something that we all do. A lot of people work hard developing new
 curriculum so when you write a proposal for something I think you should leave that part out. Adam said
 that he didn‟t know what Kathy meant by “writing a proposal.” Kathy said that in the future plans that
 Adam mentioned, he was talking about writing curriculum. So, when you write a grant you write a
 proposal. Maybe grants are different but at least on campus none of us get paid to do curriculum.
 Through grants, you can probably get money to do curriculum, but on this campus none of us get paid
 extra to do this. Adam replied that he thought that we needed to differentiate between writing your own
 class vs creating an entire AA degree. Kathy said that we all do that, classes and degrees, that this was
 our job. In a grant situation, for example with the Construction Technology program, within their grant
 they were given some money to write curriculum. The rest of us, when we develop a program, that‟s part
 of what we do. Jack Friedlander said that what Kathy was saying was accurate. The only time we fund
 on a one time basis any kind of curriculum development is when we‟re asking faculty to develop
 curriculum that is outside of what we normally expect to be their area of expertise. If it is a brand new
 field that they have to do research that no one knows anything about. In this case it was two very
 disparate programs that involved a lot of coordination of and research with community based people and
 other members of the campus community in an area – eco entrepreneurship – that was a new concept
 with a business component. Jack said he concurred with Kathy, in that this would need to be spelled out a
 bit more. Writing curriculum is normally a faculty expectation, so why is this being treated on a one time
 basis differently?

 Adam Green said that an important piece of this is that the money that would have been/that is being used
 came from a donation. It‟s not coming from general fund. It‟s from a donation so it‟s just like a grant.
 Kathy O‟Connor said that would probably be okay, but you‟re asking for more grants. Kathy asked
 Adam why he thought he hadn‟t been successful in getting those grants? The grants that were not
 funded. Adam said that some of the grants weren‟t funded but you‟d have to talk to the Department of
 Labor why they didn‟t think the Construction Academy was very interesting. Kathy said that her question
 was about the dinners with donors and then the application for some grants. What‟s the piece that‟s
 missing? Why are we not getting some of the money that we need to get? Adam said that we‟ve been one
 of many priorities for the Foundation. During the entire time that the Center for Sustainability was a
 priority we had SoMA and they had to raise $5mil for SoMA. So, where is most of their attention going

Minutes 5-12-2010                                                                            Page 11 of 14
Academic Senate Meeting
 Approved 7-14-2010
 to be paid? Kathy said she wasn‟t questioning the Foundation‟s attention, but that she wanted to find out
 what had happened with the groups of potential donors that had been invited to dinners.

 Jack said that he could give his take on this, speaking personally. What Kathy is asking, refers to events
 that the Foundation did sponsor, with some dates in the Gourmet Dining Room. Adam gave a very
 inspirational, passionate, moving talk, but nobody at the end of that wrote large checks. What‟s different
 now going forward is by focusing, in part, on Eco Entrepreneurship and principles that are very forward
 looking. In the presentations sponsored by the Foundation, they were all fans but many of them who
 were there were also from non profits looking for money as well in these difficult times. In a follow up
 meeting that I had with Adam and Guy Smith with a person who was at the event, this person said that
 they were very inspired by this and that they were willing to help make connections. Jack said that the
 question about lack of follow up from donors is a fair one. Jack repeated that what is different now from
 yesterday is promising and with the contacts that we‟ve made through the speaker series that Adam has
 brought and a focus that will resonate with people who get inspired we‟d have a much better chance than
 we‟ve had in the past.

 Adam added that we didn‟t have a track record when we started the Center. We have a track record now.
 We‟ve done good programs. We‟ve had some successes. We‟ve learned quite a lot about how to
 approach donors and working with our grant writers. This has been a learning curve in how to generate
 money. When we approached the Orfalea Foundation, we weren‟t even given the request for a proposal,
 but we beat out everybody else who did because of what we‟ve learned and how to pull off this kind of
 thing. The Orfalea funding is now $300,000 a year grant that‟s employing 4 or 5 people. We‟ve learned a
 lot along the way. We‟re building up momentum.

 Atty Garfinkel asked when the conversations with the donors‟children took place? Adam said it was very
 close to the initiation of Center, in 2007, if his memory served him right. Atty continued: the second to
 the last paragraph on the first page from Dr. Serban says “by providing the additional $15,000” Atty
 asked: additional to what? Is $15,000 the total? She said she couldn‟t tell what this is in addition to.
 Adam said that the $15,000 is a portion of the $89,500 endowment. Jack said that what is implied here is
 in addition to the two grant referenced above and the 3 TLUs that will be given to Adam this year. Jack
 said that his interpretation is that the $15,000 are in addition to the 3 TLUs.

 Atty referred to the very last sentence: “It is imperative that the specific plan/proposal for CSF be
 developed, discussed and agreed upon.” She said that she absolutely agreed that would be critical but that
 doesn‟t seem to discount this year‟s current funding means. Atty had another question about the first
 paragraph on the second page, which makes reference to just over $8,000. Atty said she was not
 understanding why $8,000 is mentioned when it is general fund money that is in question. So she didn‟t
 understand why that is there. Jack explained that, even though he had not spoken with Andreea
 specifically about this, but based in general conversations she went back and summarized, regardless of
 the source of funds where any money came from and based on the records she was given; Andreea is
 saying here is the tracking of all the money regardless of where it came from.

 Jan Schultz said that she understood that this may not technically be shared governance issues as far as
 setting priorities for funding from the Foundation or policywise. However, from some kind of a moral gut
 feeling she felt that the decision made to cut this funding, to de-prioritize this as a fundraising effort
 should have been a much wider campus discussion. Jan said she realized there is no policy basis or
 thinking that it needed to be but that as a political point it should have been. A second thing is my gut
 feeling from a lot of this letter is; that if Adam had done just a little better job on this or that, if he‟d just
 been a little clearer on this or that, this would not have happened. Adam has never heard this before,
 according to what he just said. He asked for a justification for this decision and he was not given this
Minutes 5-12-2010                                                                                  Page 12 of 14
Academic Senate Meeting
 Approved 7-14-2010
 information. If it was not adequate a year ago, why was he not informed of this and given an opportunity
 to be more specific? The memo sounds like a bit of a blame game. I find this disingenuous, as Tom
 Garey mentioned earlier.

 David Morris asked Adam if he understood correctly that he never got any feedback from the
 administration that the plan you submitted was inadequate? Adam said that they had done this with
 President Romo. Adam said that they tried to work on ideas and the kind of direction we were going
 was sufficient and this helped us raise the funds, and we‟d identified grants that fit within those general
 areas and recorded that or meet with donors that might be interested in that and we recorded that. Adam
 said that the last time he submitted something to Dr. Serban he didn‟t receive any feedback, that he
 certainly did‟t remember hearing anything specific. David asked Adam if the 3 TLUs and the $15,000,
 would enable Center to operate next year? Adam said that it would, as a minimum. Basically we can
 keep the coordinator on but probably not for an entire year.

 David Morris asked Jack about something not addressed in the letter, regarding the removal of the Center
 from the list of the priorities of the Foundation. There isn‟t any real explanation except that the plan
 wasn‟t specific enough for us to do a good enough job to raise funds. Adam and his team weren‟t given
 the opportunity to provide that because there was no feedback. David said he understood the President
 saying to the program and Adam: “Hey guys this isn‟t going to cut it if we‟re going to do a decent job on
 the Foundation and we need something that looks more like this” and give a model or something like
 that; that we‟re going to need that if we are going to go forward and keep program on the list. Then we
 would know what‟s at stake, what needs to be done, how it needs to be done and so forth. David said he
 didn‟t understand why the Center was taken off the priority list.

 Adam expressed that he wanted to address the concept of the Center not being successful in raising funds
 being mentioned. He said he was currently managing over $300,000 in grants and employing 2 fulltime
 coordinators and a half time project manager plus several teachers on one project. He said he was paying
 teachers to develop curriculum in One Planet on another project. The Zero Waste Program brought
 $18,000 worth of recycling bins on the college campus. He said he had $30,000 worth of unrestricted
 funds donated as a result of those dinners that paid for Gunter Pauli and Brock Dolman. We‟ve raised
 well over $100,000 a year for this program and it has all been accounted for and spent in very good ways.
 Adam said that the concept that we haven‟t been successful in raising funds was beyond him.

 David Morris asked again if there was a reason why the Center was removed from the list of priorities for
 the Foundation? Jack said that, according to Andreea‟s conversations with Barbara Ben Horin, the
 Center has been a hard sell for the Foundation because it is lacking the clarity to raise funds. Jack said he
 was looking at this differently. He said that what is more constructive at this point is to look forward.
 Jack said he knew what Andreea and Barbara are looking for, and that Marilyn and he should work
 closely with Adam to give it our best shot in the right format and to get it back on as a priority. Right
 now the Foundation is in a very difficult challenging environment. Their priorities are to raise money for
 Categoricals, PSS, for the MESA coordinator position for which we are running out of time in funding
 that one, plus ongoing scholarships and everything else in a very difficult fund raising environment.

 Adam said he was willing to sit down and work out a more detailed proposal for different components of
 the Center. But he insisted that the Center needs to be maintained as a priority for that work to be
 worthwhile. Adam added he was even okay with not taking all that money in the endowment and sharing
 that with some things like the MESA program. If we‟re allowed to continue as a priority, at least we
 know we can continue to raise funds. But, if you take away both things then we‟re done. The last thing I
 would say is if I hadn‟t written that letter and sent it out to the campus; and had the Channels not carried
 the front page article do you think this would have been even an option? Ignacio responded that Andreea
Minutes 5-12-2010                                                                              Page 13 of 14
Academic Senate Meeting
 Approved 7-14-2010
 Serban‟s memo was by no means in response to the Channels story, and that by Thursday, May 6, she
 had promised him a write-up about the Center that would be ready for today‟s Senate meeting.

 Dean Nevins said he thought that the feasibility of the program was great, but that what happens is when
 you go out to sell the program we need a pro active program to sell. The regional initiative would be
 perfect for that. You could also tack onto that the reactive component. Up until now it‟s been primarily
 reactive, which is fine, but I think for trying to sell something this regional proactive program would be
 really great. With a track record now you could also approach donors and truly make the program

 Adam said that a key component was that if the college itself does not use sustainability as a priority the
 donors know it. Every donor in town knows whether or not this college actually cares about sustainability
 and the overwhelming message given to the donors is, it‟s not that important. That makes it very hard to
 raise funds.

 Kathy Molloy expressed that so many people in this town want to support what the Center is doing and
 this is not a situation of funding “either or.” We have different projects for which we have donors who
 are interested in giving money. You probably have a higher priority among many people here, so we
 don‟t need to think it‟s a competition between any of our groups needing funds. Adam said that it
 certainly didn‟t have to be, and that as a matter of fact they should be able to be mutually beneficial. He
 said he thought that their program could benefit others. We can be a value added skill to a lot of

 Jim Doohan said that there isn‟t a couple of days that go by that he didn‟t think about the environment
 and how it‟s so degraded and how it‟s getting so bad and what kind of world are we going to hand off to
 our grandchildren. This is the most important issue facing the entire world. The college shouldn‟t be
 worrying about whether or not the donors are ready to jump on board. The college should be banging the
 drum and being progressive and saying we are going to do this, this is where we are going, join us,
 instead of “Gee, could we make the proposal a little better for you.” At some point this committee has
 got to say are we going to support this or not support this. The bottom line is someone has to stand up and
 say to the President, this is morally wrong, this is not forward thinking, this is regressive thinking. We as
 a college should be out in front. Adam is out in front. Jim said he was very proud of what Adam does,
 what his students do. This is a fantastic thing. People have got to stand up and get a little bit passionate
 about this. This committee has to decide whether it supports the Center for Sustainability and not
 endlessly hash about the little aspects about it. We need the support pretty soon because summer is
 coming and faculty are going to leave and then suddenly this issue starts to loose its momentum. I hate to
 jump on the soap box but this is how passionate I feel about this.

 Ignacio said this would be on the summer meeting agenda for further discussion.

       5.2 Faculty Lecturer
Jim Chesher, representative on behalf of the Faculty Lecturer Committee, wanted to present to the
Academic Senate for approval Mike Young, Physics Professor and the 32nd Annual Faculty Lecturer
M/S/C To suspend the rules and move to action (O’Connor/Nevins)
M/S/C To accept and approve the Faculty Lecturer Committee’s recommendation of Physics Professor
Mike Young as 32nd Annual Faculty Lecturer (Nevins/Carroll)

6.0     Adjourn

Minutes 5-12-2010                                                                              Page 14 of 14
Academic Senate Meeting

Shared By: