Academic Senate for California Community Colleges Counseling & Library Faculty Issues Committee Unapproved minutes, 17 November 2008 • CCC Confer Members present: Kevin Bontenbal, Cathy Cox, Andréa Devitt, Richard Mahon (chair) Members absent: Mary Beth Barrios, Stephanie Dumont The meeting began at 11:10 I. II. The agenda was approved by consensus. The 10/20/2008 minutes were approved by consensus.
III. Fall Breakouts: Richard commended one and all for a very successful group of breakouts. Both panels stayed on track time-wise and Cathy and Kevin also contributed to the Ed Policy breakout on information competency. Richard reminded session organizers to forward copies of the reimbursement form to panelists so that they can get mileage and parking reimbursed. IV. Teaching Institute Progress: Richard summarized a number of the concerns expressed by executive committee members during their informal reading of the initial teaching institute draft:
• • the mental health needs more priority, perhaps as a general session good for a first draft: Linda Michaelowski is more appropriate as a speaker than Jack Scott, though perhaps a Q&A session would be better than a keynote speaker; BSI general session, will there be anything? along with attention to mental health issues, include veterans with brain trauma & behavior issues that arise from the trauma; Sierra College’s “boots to books” could be followed up; appeal & grievance policies often show up on counselors’ desks, how do they deal with the process & where do they take it? re, learning centers: Laura Hope (Chaffey) could replace or supplement Maya, and Chaffey has data; integration the best theme: talk to Nabil [CIO at LA Pierce]—wrap-around the best institutional commitment International students, this is a small group, what’s the intent? Counseling the Transfer student? Is there new stuff or a new need on that area? Diversity? Federal regulations are about to change how data is collected and categorized, how do we get people up to speed on those issues? More on recent senate papers, how do we get counselors to participate on issues like those in the grades paper or the academic integrity papers? it looks like a counseling & not a C&L institute; the 3:1 breakout ratio is problematic; the “disruptive student” would be a better C and L focus; DE or the distant student would make the issue more relevant to librarians; the 50% discussion would be interesting since by Feb. there may be new legislation we’ll have a new counseling paper and a session devoted to the Counseling Standards paper would be useful; something on recent regulatory changes should be a focus; repetition, Ws, English & Math grad
•
•
•
•
•
requirements, changes to certificates… How do counselors & Librarians help shape implementation at the local level of? • the only link between C& L is that both feel like marginal faculty; there is a need for a librarian conference because librarians are often marginalized; why are the two are linked here? we should remove some and add from the suggestions received using papers is a good idea, we also need to make attendees aware of our range of papers; how to create virtual C&Ls to serve online courses seems to focus too much on counselors, especially the general sessions; the learning centers do bridge a bit; librarians are not under the 50% law and putting them with student services is awkward:; foster youth would be another area for a special population
• •
Members then had an extended discussion of the current shape of the institute and how it might be revised to respond to the various suggestions from the executive committee. There was particular agreement that opening up more sessions for librarians should be a priority. Richard agreed to take the suggestions from the executive committee and committee members and to revise the institute schedule in time for members to review and comment on the next draft before it goes to the next executive committee agenda (due on Nov 24). V. Next meeting: Since two members were absent, Richard indicated he would follow up with a Doodle poll to identify a time for the next meeting, which would follow the executive committee’s first formal reading of the teaching institute on Dec. 4-5 (the meeting would thus be the week of December 8). The meeting adjourned at 12:20