Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> And everybody will go ahead and call the meeting to order.
The College Council meeting of May 23, 2012.
Let's see if we can go ahead and do introductions.
Dale, you want to start over there, please.
>> Management Association.
>> Crystal Kollross, Management Association.
>> Simon Fraser, Associated Students.
>> Mon-Shane Chou, Associated Students.
>> Chris Fennessy sitting
in for Alexander Soto, Associated Students.
>> Bob Bell, Instruction Student Services.
>> Edward Martinez from the Academic Senate.
>> Bob Miller, Educational Services.
[Inaudible Remark]
>> Roger Marheine, Faculty Association.
>> Dustin Hanvey, Academic Senate.
>> Martha Bonilla, Academic Senate,
sitting in for Dan Haley.
>> Jo Ellyn McGrath, Confidentials.
>> David Krause, Classified Senate Union Rep.--
or excuse me, CSEA.
[Laughter]
>> Gary Potts, Classified Senate President.
>> Julio Huerta, Classified Senate.
>> Thank you.
Okay, we have the minutes
of the April 25th meeting, do I hear a motion?
>> I call.
>> I'll second.
>> So moved by Gary, second by Dave.
Any discussion?
>> Just a correction on the second page,
the Vote Policies 4020 and 4060.
You have D. Martinez.
I don't know who D is, should be D it should be E. [Laughs]
>> Okay, any other items?
Okay, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed?
Abstentions?
Thank you.
Public comment, is there any member of the public who cares
to speak to the Council?
[Inaudible Remark] Here for the courier, okay.
>> The courier is okay with the--
>> Okay, do you care to make a comment
or you just identifying who you are?
[Inaudible Remark] Okay, thank you so much.
Okay, ethics checking Classified Senate.
[ Noise ]
[ Inaudible Remarks ]
>> To maintain the productive association
and enable the Classified Senate to pursue it's subjective
by means consistent with the interest of the students,
classified staff, faculty, administrators
of the Pasadena City College.
That was our third item on our--
[ Noise ]
Oh, in order to accomplish that, we are--
we have general meetings
of the Classified Senate every other Wednesday, the first
and third Wednesdays of the month where we discuss
in an open meeting all kinds of issues from items of students
to staff, faculty, and issues with things happening on campus.
>> Got something to add.
>> Very good.
Thank you.
With the permission of the group,
I'd like to modify the order of the agenda and I'd
like to move item 7 of alignment
for discussion of possible action.
Is that acceptable to the board?
I think that's the topic that people are most concerned
about at the moment and I want to make sure that based
on people schedules
that everybody has an ample opportunity
to discuss the topic.
I think that all of you are able to pick up some handouts
and there was a last minute tweak
to the College Council interim plan version we're going
to talk about.
So I'm going to go ahead and pass that out now.
Yeah, I got one ,thank you.
>> Excuse me Bob.
What color, is that the blue or the green or is it--
>> Its going to be green and I'm going to walk everybody through.
As soon as you get-- as soon as that they go
around the table there.
There are three plans if you will.
The one that is blue is the plan
that the College Council Planning
and Priority Standing Committee approved.
And we'll come back and we'll talk about these in a second.
The plan that is both gray and red is the document
that the Academic Senate has both partially approved
with the two columns, if you will, column 3
and column 4 that are pending.
And I'll let the Academic Senate people speak to that
when we get to discussion.
And then the item that is going around now, the green sheet,
is the document that we would like the College Council
to consider after we get to the point of walking people
through the blue and the red, if you will, red and gray, okay?
So does everybody-- as soon as everybody has that,
I'll go ahead and make some introductory comments
and then President Martinez of the Academic Senate
and others will have some comments as we go forward here.
Okay, so let me briefly report
that the College Council Planning
and Priority Standing Committee met on April 30th,
and they have basically took the report of the two task teams.
They listened to public comment from a variety of sources,
both in person in terms of meetings that we had
in Creveling from faculty, from division deans,
from classified staff.
We also partook of a great deal of email traffic
and other comments and other written information that came
to the Planning and Priorities Committee.
They then began to deliberate and as a result of that,
you'll see starting on the left hand side of the page,
decisions that were made by the group.
The column that says on the left,
continue with permanent deans by a vote of 9 yes,
1 no and 4 abstentions, that column was approved.
The column-- the next column over,
continue with interim deans for Math
and Visual Arts and Media Studies.
That was approved by a vote of 12 yes, 0 no, and 1 abstention.
After a great deal of discussion regarding Business and ENT,
it was recommended by this group that Business
and ENT remains separate divisions
that there would be a dean for each division
and that there would also be a Director of CTE
and Workforce Development added to the organization.
That vote was 7 yes, 6 no, and 2 abstentions.
And as I recall, the Chair of the Committee had
to break the tie, is that correct on that Ed?
Am I remembering differently?
>> It was on CEC.
>> It was on the CEC, excuse me.
So it's 7 yes, 6 no, and 2 abstentions.
And you'll see what the group determined was what business
would be comprised of and what ENT would be comprised of.
And I'll say that by way of skipping
over to the column that's on the far right hand side
under realigned programs and you'll notice
that there is recommendation by this group
to relocate the Architecture Program to the Visual Arts
and Media Studies Division by a vote of 9 yes,
3 no and 3 abstentions, to relocate Fashion from Business
to VAMS, 10 yes, 2 no, 3 abstentions,
to relocate Computer Science to Math, 15 yes, 0 no,
0 abstentions, and then to relocate the division
of Kinesiology Health and Athletics
to the Natural Sciences Division with a vote 14 yes,
0 no, and 1 abstention.
The process from the College and Council--
College Council Planning and Priority Standing Committee was
to send their recommendations in two separate directions.
One was to the Academic Senate for consideration
and the other was to the College Council for consideration
which is why we just gone over this chart.
At this point, I'd like to turn it over to President Martinez,
President of the Academic Senate,
and ask him to go through their chart.
And I want to make one correction here the--
unfortunately, the top header got cut off a little bit,
partially approved by Academic Senate on May 14th of 2012.
The next and that the dependings are going to be considered
at their next meeting which I believe is June 4th.
>> June 4th, right.
>> June 4th and that header just got cut off
in the printing process somehow.
>> Before we move on to the red one,
can we just clarify what the vote under--
they call them on the part of the--
>> Oh, on the CEC.
I'd missed the CEC.
I shouldn't--
>> No, well besides the CEC under Dean of ENT,
it's this graphic communication and there's these series
of votes, can we just clarify that that's because--
>> Oh yes.
>> -- [inaudible] was slated to move.
>> Thank you Simon.
Yes and thank you for reminding me.
Yes, under the Dean of ENT,
graphic communications was slated to be relocated to VAMS.
And after a great deal of discussion, it was determined
that the vote was 0 yes, 15 no, and 0 abstentions.
And also, thank you Simon.
I did skip over the CEC and with the CEC the--
there was a vote for to maintain a full dean, 6 yes, 4 no,
5 abstentions and then reporting to educational services, 5 yes,
4 no and 5 abstentions.
And then you can see what comprises the CEC.
So thank you Simon for that.
So now I'll turn it over to President Martinez
and he can speak to the--
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Well on May the 14th, the Academic Senate met
in its regular meeting and voted on the interim plan that came
to us from Planning and Priorities.
So, this pink or red chart reflects the senate's actions.
So let me just review this with you also.
The very first column was approved that--
it's the one that says continue with permanent deans.
You can see the listing of the various divisions there
and the votes are the votes taken in the Academic Senate.
So in this case, it was 14 yes, 0 no and 4 abstentions.
The second column was reworded as you can see to say continue
with permanent deans for Math and VAMS,
and the votes were 18 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions.
I'll come back to the middle portion in just a moment.
Skipping over to CEC that was approved
with the wording dean reporting to the VP
of Educational Services until June the 30th,
2013 then reporting to the VP of Instruction approved
and I believe it's 9 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions.
>> 19 actually.
>> Okay.
>> 19
>> 19, okay, sorry.
>> It's all right.
>> All right, and then the last one, there were votes taken
on those various moves that were just described.
So Architecture to VAMS, sorry I can't see that very well,
but I think it's 17 yes, 1 no, 1 abstention.
Fashion to VAMS, sorry my vision is not very good, what is that?
>> I can read that, 17 yes.
>> Okay.
>> Fashion to VAMS, 18 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions.
>> Thank you.
Computer Science to Math, 18 yes, I believe, 0 no,
0 abstentions and Kinesiology to Natural Sciences,
17 yes, 1 no, 1 abstention.
We're going back to the two middle columns.
On busi-- basically, Business, and Engineering and Technology,
there was extensive discussion about those two divisions
and how they should report to the administration,
but you can see at the very top, it says pending.
So we decided basically to not take a vote
on those two divisions to engage in further discussion
at our next meeting and to hear what your recommendation is
on those items.
And then the Academic Senate vote will weigh
in on at our next meeting.
Anything that the other Senate Reps would like to add?
>> Yeah, and also that there would be a dean--
a CTE dean and a Director of Workforce Development sort
of in midlevel management between those divisions
and the VP of Instruction.
>> And I think the concept there was to assist.
I'm sorry [inaudible].
>> There was also some discussion of CIS and whether
where CS should-- CIS should report to.
And there was another issue that we hadn't really decided
that particular meeting and will be discussed further
at a future meeting.
>> Right.
>> We have-- I'm sorry, CIS and CS people here,
would you like to address any of these today?
>> Actual-- early, we did receive your email
about your recommendation.
I don't know if you would like to address it?
>> We recommend that CIS move to CTE under a dean
so we have more direct supports on our programs and [inaudible].
We need someone to understand our goal and part of these are--
>> So I'm wondering if-- one second, what I-- if it's--
if I may, at-- the first two items are informational
to the document that the College Council would be discussing
right now within the context of this.
So if we could turn our attention to the proposal
that [inaudible] College Council proposal, then I think
that all these comments would relate to that.
I know Simon and Chris and others want
to speak, so let's do that.
>> Well, I actually just have a really quick question for Dustin
and I guess I add as well.
Since you mentioned the discussion was not the
discussion whether CIS should move to CTE
and because we don't have a CTE Division, so what was the sub--
the sort of a brief substance of that discussion
at the Academic Senate?
>> I think that there wasn't--
the idea of having CIS report directly to some type
of CTE Dean was discussed, but you're right,
there is that deanship is open at the present time.
So, we didn't get into a lot of details about the nature
of that relationship or the nature of those report lines.
>> So it's just whether it should move some way?
>> Well I think that will clarify that as we get into it
and we will hear from CIS what they need in terms--
[Simultaneous Talking]
>> So--
>> Divisional [inaudible] proposal,
CIS was scheduled to move to CTE then.
>> Right.
>> For [inaudible] on the very first--
>> Let me take Dave's question and Chris's question
and I just want to come back to this chart and go through this.
And then I think if we basically have our discussion
around this document, it will help to organize
where we're going and how we might get there.
So I think Dave is first and then Chris.
>> Yeah, I notice that both of these are different.
This is acting like we couldn't change under the word as to--
and much like the permanent deans
and this other one has interim dean.
Are you suggesting that the interim deans become permanent?
>> Yeah.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> In the second column, you're referring to?
>> Yeah.
>> Yes, we voted to change the wording
from interim to permanent.
>> Yeah, and remember the process was the Planning
and Priorities Committee does its work and then reports
out to the Academic Senate and the College Council.
And what this represents the Academic Senate's current
thinking relative to the recommendation that was provided
to them and there're still pending discussion
at the June 4th meeting.
>> So it reflects our recommendation, right?
>> Yeah, because I know that the ones that was just announced,
I definitely did either one of them.
>> Well actually, it's not.
So, if-- I think Chris and then I'll speak
to this a little bit if I may.
>> Just a question on the idea of the CTE Dean that I see
on here, was that-- how that proposal go about?
What was that propose-- I, a member of the Academic Senate,
like where did that come from 'cause that seem,
I wasn't on our-- on the priorities--
>> I think it's really just an attempt--
if you go back to the blue version,
you can see that that middle column says Business ENT remains
separate divisions.
>> Right.
>> And then, the-- it mentions dean for each division,
members of the CTE and Workforce Development.
So this is simply an attempt to move those around,
provide a bit more clarity for that.
But we are not defining the work of the CTE Dean,
or clarifying the lines of reporting on this.
>> So I guess my question is, because in our blue one,
the Planning and Priorities blue one which I see it on,
had the Director of CTE in our course development
but we did not have the dean for it.
I was wondering how that entered
into the Academic Senate's conversation [inaudible].
>> Through faculty from CEC.
>> Okay.
>> And who wanted a dean for their program--
>> Yeah.
>> -- and their planning, yes.
>> I see. Your question is how do we go
from a director to a dean.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. Simply the decision
of dean is more appropriate for that field.
>> And we have an Associate Dean of CTE who retired
and that position has been vacant now for I guess a year.
>> About a year.
>> So let me just take one more minute
and focus everybody's attention
on the green document what we currently labeled Interim Plan
College Council Proposal.
Again starting on the left hand side,
what we've effectively done
for your consideration is we merged the two columns
that were interim plan of--
Planning and Priorities of continue with permanent deans
for the divisions, continue with interim deans in that version.
And then in the Academic Senate version,
we merged the first columns into effectively one column,
continue with deans and divisions.
And we just put them all together.
So we just-- so that clarified that.
We-- we're codifying or suggesting that Business
and ENT remain separate divisions reporting
to the Vice-President of Instruction,
and those divisions be constituted
as they are set forth there.
We are suggesting and planning off
of what the Academic Senate is suggesting as well
that there'll be a CTE Dean position and a Director
of the CTE and Workforce Development.
These are management positions
that would serve all CTE programs across the campus.
And as many of you know, we've got CTE programs
in probably eight or more of our divisions in one form
or another, so that these two positions would be decisions
that report to Dr. Bell.
And Dr. Bell would have those three positions to manage CTE
for the campus prepositions, including himself obviously.
The CEC, there is no changes there reporting to the VP
of Ed Services for one year.
And that's because of the workload that the Vice-President
of Instruction currently has, he's both the Vice-President
of Instruction and the Vice-President
of Student Services.
And then there was no change
in the realigned departments and divisions.
So effectively what you have here is a summary document
that is very much in alignment with the act--
with the Academic Senate recommendations.
And significantly in alignment with the plan that came
for Planning and Priorities.
So if we can focus the discussion on the green document
that will-- that's the one that we're really aiming
to talk about right now.
So let me open the floor to that.
Yeah, if you like to say--
[Inaudible Remark] Can you give me favor?
Because of the microphone, 'cause we're video tapping,
would you mind going up to the podium?
Thank you.
Thanks Daryl.
>> Hello, hello.
So I'm not clear on the representation
for the Business Division and the ENT Division, okay?
In early iterations, they had with interim deans for that,
they seem they had been dispensed with
and saw exactly how it was such instruction reporting
and how was that arrived to that?
>> Well, I'll speak to this to start, and then Dr. Bell,
maybe you might want to comment and about this.
The concept is that there would be three managers to work
with those divisions and other CTE programs.
And that through whatever process that Dr. Bell wants
as far as other assistance that would be worked out.
I don't want to speak for Dr. Bell but--
>> Well-- and Daryl if I may
to speak directly-- oh, there you are.
Speak directly to your question.
For Business and ENT decision--
discussion was to continue
to have those divisions report directly to the Vice-President
of Instruction, in this case, my office.
The view was that, and I'm going to shift
over to the middle column for CTE,
there were the strong emphasis, at least in my opinion,
to go forward to look to bring CTE Dean on board
and the Director of Workforce Development.
I say that because we've lost--
the college has lost a great deal of traction
in the business community with respect to our relationship
with them, also speaking to what I heard early--
mentioned earlier, the fact that that position is going
to bring greater advocacy and support for all
of our CTE Departments and the faculty in those departments.
So that was the recommendation that-- for that.
In my advocacy, will be to go with those in the column.
For Business and ENT, I think everybody recognizes,
this is an interim capacity,
we've been in an interim capacity for the current year.
I will speak for my own individual position.
I think if we talk to bringing a CTE Dean on board
and then two more permanent deans for Business and for ENT,
and it's not that I have any real concern
with those deans positions, I do have concern with the cost
of mounting those position in the current budget situation.
And so that-- I don't if I really answer your question,
but that's really was the rationalities for my perspective
in the Office of Vice-President of Instruction
for the current model.
>> So is anything you--
>> Go ahead [inaudible].
>> Well I have a question and I don't know who can--
anyone can answer it with the Business Division listing
about [inaudible] disciplines, well actually,
how many full-time and how many part-time faculty are we
talking about?
>> Probably 29 full-time and [inaudible] and 45--
>> 29 and 45?
>> Yeah.
>> And with ENT, do we have some sense of numbers of full
and part-time faculty about-- [Inaudible Remarks]
>> Put together
>> Full and part-time?
>> Full and part-time.
>> How many?
>> You know, I hate to say but it seems like the obvious
and I-- with all due respect, Bob is the best
at handling enormous responsibilities.
But this look an awfully-- like me, do they look like divisions
that should have deans.
But I also want this to be faculty-driven
and I don't know what the individuals
in the room would prefer.
[ Pause ]
>> I'm Shelly Gaskin, I'm with the Business Division.
I just want to say that I speak for the business faculty
that we feel a little uneasy not having a dean.
We feel a little bit like we're different somehow
than our colleagues on the campus.
And you're' right Roger, we have a major division that's very
popular with students.
[ Pause ]
>> Simon?
>> So my first question I guess is what's happening the
Vice-President of Instruction position?
I'm assuming that you can't handle two jobs forever.
What will happen with your position-- temporary--
>> Well in the current configuration,
I'm actually doing four jobs.
[Laughter]
>> I'm so sorry.
[Laughter]
>> Thank you, I appreciate that.
Currently, I'm the Vice-President
of Student Learning Services, Vice-President of Instruction,
Interim Dean for Business and Interim Dean for ENT.
Some of them vote for those positions.
To Roger's point, to the point in the faculty,
and I will say this is this is not really so much
of a self-evaluation for the role I've done since I've gone
into the Vice-President for Instruction, the faculty
and the two divisions where I served,
the interim dean have not been served well.
And that's not so much statement of me or really anything.
It's just the fact that I don't think anyone individual can do
an effective job in those four positions.
And the importance of having leadership on the ground
for those divisions is critical.
So-- did your questions--
what's going to happen with the vice-presidency?
I-- at this point, I am going--
I've been asked to remain in both the vice-presidencies,
so I'm going to continue to both for those.
I feel comfortable doing that.
The addressment of the-- my responsibilities as interim dean
for two divisions clearly needs to be addressed.
I just don't think-- and again, it's not so much self-served
to me Simon, it's just a real [inaudible].
I don't think anyone can do an effective job.
And again, I don't think the popular students in anyone
of those two divisions have been effectively served.
>> And I completely agree with you and that's why I believe
that we set in Planning and Priorities
that we have a very intense discussion
of the shared governance level about this.
I mean, I'm even wondering why we're having
such a thorough discussion at the College Council level
when obviously anything we do is going to go back
to the Academic Senate who obviously has their own mind.
I don't like the idea of Business
and ENT not having a leadership position.
I think they absolutely do need to have a dean
if they're going to be that big.
Until we've started to look at the newer models which Planning
and Priorities is in the process of doing for learning--
so for faculty learning community is
and for faculty cohorts, I think that it's essential that we
at least have some kind of separate leadership other
than some-- one person that is doing far too much distance.
And I don't understand what the rationale is behind having them
going straight directly to the VP for Instruction
and who would be the point person for that.
>> Okay.
>> Well, if we could hear more-- a little bit more about the role
and the nature of the CTE Dean and the Director
of Workforce Development and how those two division
or entities will interact with the divisions,
could you comment on that Dr. Bell?
>> Yeah, well CTE Dean again would have a general oversight
on over all the areas again
which there were career technical education
and vocational programs.
So this CTE Dean, and that's very difficult for me to say,
would also have some oversights the managers will oversight.
And if you will to [inaudible] in the mid-area responsibility
for working with the faculty and Business and ENT
between those faculty knees on the ground if you will
into my office, so some of these were rolled
up to the responsibility of the CTE Dean to do as well.
>> So might we-- I'm sorry.
Are we effectively then creating a CTE division
with the two subdivisions?
>> Before they answer that question, and Dr. Bell,
would that same concept apply to the director position as well.
That both of these positions could
in fact be assisting you in-- if you will--
facilitating the needs of the Business Division
and the ENT Division as well as other CTE programs on campus?
>> I see both for those positions being able
to work much more closer with the faculty,
be much more responsive to the needs of faculty
on an ongoing basis far more so then the Vice-President
of Instruction could be.
And so to answer your question, yes.
>> And of course part
of the reasoning why this is the way it is right now is
because of our either 10.4 million or 8.4 million depending
if you include the 2 million from last year in the equation
because of our budget situation.
Because I think as you mentioned,
or trying to so we can do it budgetary.
Is that correct?
>> Yeah, well yeah.
I think anything we look at doing, we have to do
with the realization that we are dealing
with a significant budget deficit for the next year
which will be anywhere from-- to about 8--
6, 8, 5 million dollars.
>> And then as--
>> That school year.
>> As Simon mentioned, and I'd like Dustin at point to speak
to what the Academic Senator's going to be doing
as we move forward on the next level,
but I think Simon had a question that in--
and had question, Roger and then Dave.
>> You know, I think I'll yield
to other people 'cause I have a lot to say.
I want other people to have a chance so--
>> Then I think we'll go to Ann [phonetic], if I may please?
>> I am just speaking for myself.
I'm not speaking for the division
but I'm a little confused.
I see all these layers being created.
I think I agree with all the comments
that were made about our divisions.
I can speak for ENT that have been without leadership.
I'm not to, you know, [laughs] criticize Dr. Bell
but he has a lot on his plate.
And I feel like we're creating this other layers
with the CTE Dean and we're creating this director--
okay, I can understand the restrictions
because of the money.
But then, we're going to go out
and create this other positions with--
as a CTE Dean and a director which is also going
to cost a significant amount
and I'm not exactly sure how they're going to fit into--
in between us and the VP of Instruction if we're going
to be-- sort of-- I know, I see on the paper it says
that we're going to reporting to the VP of Instruction, but then,
you've got this other--
this layer of the CTE Director plus a dean.
So I'm a little confused as to how that--
that's going to kind of work.
And I'm a little concerned because I think that we--
not having a sitting dean in the office has been a hardship
and I think that needs to be looked at a little further.
And as I said, these are my own comments,
I'm not speaking for the division.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
This is Dave and then Roger.
>> My question was are these two--
are the CTE Dean and Director,
are these two new management positions?
>> Well, the CTE Dean is a replacement
of an existing management position that's
on the books right now.
The director position would be a new management position.
>> Well, what?
I am saying, why would have both?
Why would we have dean and a director?
>> Because the--
>> Doing the same job basically it seems like.
>> Well, they're not because of the scope
and the responsibilities for the CTE area of this institution
and the workforce investment board activity is the labor
market study activities.
They're working with industry activities,
the program review activities, institutional effectiveness.
I mean, there's just that great deal that work that needs
to be done in the support of our CTE programs on this campus.
>> Well, what-- would the dean be reporting to the director
or director reporting to the dean or are they both separate?
>> Both of these positions will be reporting
to Dr. Bell if they come about.
Roger?
>> I'd like to move and just for discussion sake
that we move Business Division to column 1
with a permanent dean, we move ENT Division to column 1
with the permanent dean, and we combine the CTE Dean
with the director of CTA and the Workforce Development.
It's a three part motion.
[Inaudible Remark]
>> Discussion?
Simon?
>> Dustin.
>> Of Dustin.
>> You want me to talk about the--
what the senate is doing for next year, am I correct?
>> I am correct.
>> Okay.
>> But I don't know if we can do that now--
[Simultaneous Talking] Okay exactly, we got to deal
with the motion first.
>> Okay, I'll hold back.
>> Okay. Unless the person who did the first at the--
the first and the second would allow that.
>> I'm open to any discussion.
[Inaudible Discussions]
>> Well, Roger just said that he's willing to defer
that until Dustin speaks.
>> We'll still talk about the motion, right?
>> Yeah. So you just want us
to allow the discussion to take place.
>> The Academic Senate has already begun work
to continue the work of the planning
and priorities committee for the long-term aspects of this
and I think that it's important for us to think about this
as an interim plan for next year.
This is not anything long-term.
And Valerie Foster is in charge of that committee
and she's already getting her committee together to think
about what the long-term aspects of these visions will be.
And so, I don't know if that's exactly what you wanted me
to speak to but a lot of these decisions
about where these things are we reporting long term will be made
over the next year.
>> Right, so I think the message here is
that this is an interim plan probably for no longer
than a year if it all works out correctly.
>> If I may, I have an English Division Tea
to give two scholarships away, one of which is
in my grandparents' honor.
So with all do respect to the committee,
I'm going to be going upstairs to the English Division Tea
and A.C. Panella who is the new vice president
of the Academic Senate is going to take my seat.
>> Thank you Dustin.
Thanks for--
>> If-- if, if I could--
>> Yes?
>> What does the Academic Senate mean when it says it's going
to take over the long--
the long-term goals of the Shared Governance Committee?
>> The Shared Government, I think that Dustin,
we'll need to clarify some of that by fortunate.
Some of those items will come under the purview
of the Shared Governance Committees
as to how we might recommend the long-term alignment.
>> Right.
>> The alignment.
>> And I would like to ask,
does this come back as a separate item?
>> Yeah.
>> Because I think that needs discussion.
>> Absolutely.
>> And they clarify basically,
I think what Dustin was really trying to say is
that the Academic Senate is going to be contributing
to that process but it still stays with under the purview
of Planning and Priorities Committee
and the College Council.
>> Okay, 'cause it did sound like the Academic Senate planned
to just simply subsume that responsibility
when I believe it is actually a [inaudible] issue given
that it directly involves students,
it directly involves managers,
and it directly involves classified as much as
and in some cases if not more than the faculty on the campus.
>> I think there is, there is strong agreement
with that perspective.
>> Not quite, but okay.
>> What we're involved here is in the, this notion of academic
and professional matters and what falls under the purview
of the Academic Senate and what falls in other broader context
with shared governance.
So actually, I stand corrected, I over spoke.
And it is a discussion that we have to continue to have.
>> And when we have the discussion, I would actually
like to have potentially a legal opinion from General Council.
>> Noted, thank you.
>> Can I speak to the motion now?
>> Yes, please.
>> I'm going to disagree, Roger, respect-- with the respect.
I don't think we've heard enough about the CTE dean
and the director of CTE and workforce development
to be able make a decision on that right now.
But I also do not think that it is suitable for them to exist
in an interim plan, given
that we don't know what the alignment will look like.
Future on, I can see both
of these positions working incredibly well with the cohorts
that Joy Brittain and many of us are not familiar with,
because I think that that kind of overarching responsibility
for CTE would suit well for a structure
where cohorts have different kinds
of faculty communities are picking their own deans
as it were.
And so I think you would fit really well there.
Do I necessarily think that it works under a current model?
I don't quite agree, unless we were
to make some actual structural changes
which I don't think are part of an interim plan.
So, I'm not saying that I want these
but I would oppose the motion on that basis.
And I think we still need to have discussion
about that third column before we can make a decision.
>> Yeah, Daryl.
Thank you.
>> To my vigilant knowledge,
it seems as though the business division as well as the ENT are
on poverty, any on your first column to your left, okay?
I'm not quite clear and I don't think--
I never asked people who worked here of what that decision was
to produce those two particular areas to that ma--
what is it, director kind of level,
I think that's what you're saying.
They have been an instruction on divisions for many years here.
There are many people who watch those programs
as it's identified as one of the key programs for many
of the first year and foreign students coming
through the program.
As far as the business division goals,
that's been a meeting of other divisions.
It's been very important.
That's the-- one of the key attractive divisions
of students coming to Pasadena City College.
Though if you reduce that to a--
I mean direct your level of responsibility,
and I think as far as presentation and representation
within a larger college environment,
they would merit a deep decision for those.
>> Yeah.
>> That's-- and I haven't, I haven't gotten clear-- clarity.
I think there was a dollar amount Dr. Bell spoke
about as far as some kind of cost reduction.
And so, that's why we're reducing those
to those positions, just because of that one?
>> Well, I-- let me just respond quickly.
The business in ENT remains separate divisions reporting
to the VPI.
So the divisions stay as they are,
there's nothing implied there or stated there that says business
in ENT would report to the CTE dean or the director of CTE
and workforce development or both.
They will just-- under this interim plan would continue
to report to the VPI.
The VPI then would use whatever resources
that he felt were necessary to help
to keep those two divisions from functioning.
That's what this implies.
>> I would like to raise a question about the need
for revitalization of the certificate programs
and with the degree programs in business and or ENT.
Are we correct in assuming that there is indeed some need
to reorganize those programs
and that therefore you need a CTE dean
and a workforce development director to assist you with--
assist the faculty members with the layers of work
that are involved there?
Shall we?
>> In our division, we have both CTE programs
and just strictly transfer programs but Daryl
and I just came from a meeting with your group
of the councilors talking about the kinds of things
that we're doing in our division
to address the completion agenda for CTE.
What you're saying is true for all programs on this campus.
All CTE programs have suffered from not having any kind
of assistant to track the students
from having 78 different certificates
and 78 different classified staff members
of students must find to get the certificate.
So what you say is true but it affects all of the CTE programs
in Performing Arts and Natural Sciences
and so on on the campus.
So I think we welcome having a CTE dean
to help these students complete because in my program,
we've just identified probably 75 students
who could complete a certificate next semester,
and no way to get them into the classes that they need to do
that and no way to celebrate their success
because they're not invited to graduation.
And Cynthia Olivo and I are talking about rectifying that.
But the issue here is we are instructional divisions just
like other instructional divisions and our feeling
that we are being treated differently
in not having a division dean just
because we have CTE programs within us,
those need to be revitalized
as do all the CTE programs across the campus.
So, we fully support having a CTE dean
and having someone consolidate that process
to help these students complete and to help PCC say, "Yes,
we can get people completed at this campus."
I think that's a separate issue from having two major groups
of faculty not being represented as instructional divisions.
>> Okay, I'm sorry Chris, thank you.
>> So, I see us having kind of two needs here
that we're trying to solve.
One is the fact that CTE needs a revitalization,
needs leadership, and one's the fact that both the business
and ENT divisions have been lacking leadership as well.
And I see that-- I mean and it's possibly
because cost effectiveness or whatever it may be but it seems
that we're trying to say that the solution to one,
creating the CTE dean and the director of CTE
and workforce development, will solve the issues on the other.
And that's something that to me isn't something that I can--
that I not necessarily agree with.
I don't think that just by not having deans
but by having those two positions to help
in some aspects of the business in ENT divisions is going
to be sufficient to really solve the issues that are going
on in those divisions.
But also as a member of the Planning
and Priorities Committee, you know, we heard a great amount
of comment from both divisions saying that they want
to remain separate and they need leadership.
And that's why we created the thing, the proposal that we had
and I personally felt that it was also--
it was something that was needed,
especially it is an interim plan,
and more plans will probably be made by the Planning
and Priorities Committee next year.
This is something that I think the most effective way would be
the two divisions both with deans.
And perhaps the CTE dean, director of CTE
and workforce development, if it's really just a matter
that we can't pay for both aspects,
then that's what we're going to use our analyzing.
>> Gary?
>> I want to agree with Alex 'cause one
of my greatest concerns in which being part
of the BRAC Committee is the fiscal responsibility.
What impact this has fiscally,
that's something we haven't even talked about yet.
I mean, you know, yes it is, probably good to have deans
and managers, but what impact do we have?
You know, like Dr. Rick shared many times, we--
looking at a four to seven million dollar cut next year.
I mean, we got to consider these too.
So I just want to bring that point.
>> Yeah, it's actually eight to ten million dollars.
>> Okay.
>> Roger? I'm sorry, I'm sorry Dave first then Roger,
pardon me.
>> My question is if this is an interim plan, if this passes
on this directory and the deans only going
to be signed for one year?
>> Well, first of all,
regardless of how this goes today, this is advisory.
This is consultative to the president.
It is-- this doesn't-- there are no decisions made other
than the statement by this group
of their consideration to the item.
So I don't think anybody should be confused regardless what the
Academic Senate says or what the College Council says.
It's a decision of the Superintendent and President,
and the Board of Trustees as to how we eventually do what we do,
in the interim midterm and long-term, taking in--
taking things under advisement.
I think--
>> Martha, if you want to go--
>> Yeah, Martha, go ahead please.
Are you-- okay.
>> Well, it just occurs to me that so much of the planning
of a possible future has to do with faculty cohorts.
And why doesn't management take a leaf out of the book
of the faculty cohort process and develop a dean of CTE,
CTE dean for the CEC and the programs there,
as well as the dean for business, and the dean for ENT.
That would work as a cohort.
So, instead of hiring a director position,
each of this would work as a cohort in coordinating the kind
of information that needs to be generated
for our workforce development.
In other words, managers begin to work as cohorts as well.
>> Yeah. It's a reasonable idea and it's again probably part
of what is under partial consideration this year
and will continue next year in terms of where we finally end
up with, in what structure and what best fits
in our reality right now.
I think Roger, now.
>> Oh, you know, Coleman, you haven't spoken.
Why don't you speak?
>> I've heard two very clear sets
of problems defined which I agree with.
There's the CTE dean issue that means bringing leadership there,
but we've also described the need
for leadership in ENT and business.
Now, if we go to the model that is, which one, it's the--
the green one that were--
[Inaudible Remark] If we go to the green one and then we vote
to pass this, I think we're going to perhaps be able
to solve the CTE dean issue
and provide the necessary leadership.
But as I see it, we still have the problem with leadership
in ENT and business, that that problem was not being solved.
It's-- that's the problem.
>> I disagree.
I think it will be help for the short-term
and I think it gets us through next year,
and helps with our budget situation.
And I think it gives Dr. Bell more people to work with.
I mean, I just respectfully disagree
with that, but that's okay.
[Inaudible Remark]
>> Yes, please.
>> I appreciate very good discussion
and I especially appreciate the fact we from ENT
and business here sharing their thoughts,
and just to hear your thought carry out.
Yes, the fiscal issues are always of importance,
and yet when we, in the FA, participate informally really
with the transition of both ENT and business,
in which their former deans were no longer in the positions,
we were very concerned and we spoke about this
that we didn't want chairs or directors
or whatever the new title would be that these individuals,
and I think two of them are right here,
take on dean-like responsibilities,
and dean-like services, and yet not get paid that way.
We were very concerned, we have overworked faculty effectively
doing the dean's jobs.
And back in the discussion of the worries and thoughts
about chairs, we, you know,
the word we were getting is chairs would be weaker
and cheaper.
And that was over the mantra that we were hearing.
And we're very nervous about that.
And so, this discussion is going on for a year.
It's been a very rich discussion, very, I think,
very collegial discussion from so many different channels.
And that's very positive.
But, several things, one is, I always quote Edward,
faculty discipline-driven decisions are usually the best,
and I'm hearing loud and clear, and when I look at business,
I see a division, it should have a dean.
When I see ENT, it looks like a division to me,
it should have a dean.
Or it's some kind of stepchild.
It's some kind of neither fish nor fowl.
And that's a problem.
And I think that we have scholars of faculty
who deserve a dean if that's what they want.
I will say, the third column, I'm a little confused.
I put the motion out, mostly for expediency
because that might be the cost savings.
I see Bob Bell doing four jobs or more, and I thought,
couldn't a CTE dean also be the director, combine those two,
we save one salary, one management salary.
But I do think that effectively, if we don't have a dean
in business or ENT, we're exploiting faculty
who effectively do all those extra work for much less
than a dean would get.
And as an FA person, I would be opposed to that.
>> Not to mention the secretaries.
>> Not to mention the secretaries.
[Laughter]
>> Okay so, as I recall, we have a motion on the floor,
and I believe-- well, Roger, can you restate your motion please?
>> It's a three-part motion.
First that the business division would be moved
to the first column and have a permanent dean.
Second, that the ENT division be moved to the first column
and have a permanent dean.
Third, for the third column,
the CTE dean position would be combined with the director
of CTE and workforce development,
to make one position.
>> Okay. Dave, is that you-- so you're second?
Simon, I think you want to--
>> Yeah. We don't have a CTE dean currently
on the payroll, correct?
>> That's correct.
>> So we are not actually expending a salary
for a CTE dean?
>> That is correct.
>> And we-- this director of CTE
and workforce development is a new position
so we are not currently expending a salary
for that position, correct?
>> That is correct.
>> Have we identified that there is an absolute urgent need
to fill the CTE dean position for an interim year?
>> Right, yes.
>> So it's absolutely essential
that we fill that one for a year?
>> I'll let Dr. Bell speak to that.
>> I will say again what I said before.
I think it is essential.
I think it's absolutely essential for many of the time
as we've heard from the faculty.
I know from this respect, a lot of respect
to workforce development and some of the expectations
that the business community has with PCC,
which we very ardently, we're able to do in the past
but just aren't able to do now.
So I see some real urgency there.
>> And if we were to not fill the CTE dean position
and not create the director of CTE
and workforce development division and fill dean position
for business and ENT, what would that do fiscally to the plan?
>> Actually, the CTE dean and the director
of CTE would be less expensive
to some degree 'cause the director is a lower
level position.
So it would be less expensive.
However, I think the issue here is,
if you look at management positions to serve CTE programs,
there is an urgent need at this college to look at CTE
across the board, from a program review perspective
and institutional faculty perspective from the delivery
of certificates perspective from, you know,
from a job development perspective, you know,
we have data upon data upon data that speaks to this urgent need.
These two positions are more global in context and purpose
than perhaps the business dean and the ENT dean.
No one is debating, I'm certainly not,
that there is a need for all of these positions.
It's just a question of what is a more urgent need given our
current budgetary reality.
That's what this represents.
>> Then my final comment would simply be that I just--
I remain wary about creating a new position
for this part of interim plan.
I don't think it feels very interim.
>> Okay, and actually in that context,
it wouldn't be, frankly.
>> Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but the CTE dean
and the workforce development director would be permanent
positions, not interim.
>> That is absolutely correct, that is absolutely correct.
>> But is it also correct to say, that basically,
the choice is between funding these two, the dean
and director positions or the two dean positions?
>> That might be one way of looking at it.
Yes, Dr. Bell, would you like to comment on that?
>> I'm almost-- I'm almost sorry I brought
up the whole notion of budget and cost--
>> Right. [Laughter]
>> -- because, I think it's taken us down a path
of discussion where we're choosing one of the--
one or the other based upon dollars.
That was not my attempt for bringing that up.
My attempt of bringing those up was
to underscore what Gary just said.
We are looking at a significant budget deficit
for the 2012-2013 fiscal year and academic year.
And I think we have to be cognizant of the cost of that.
And again, as someone who's only been at the institution
in a relatively short time, one of the things
that I was introduced to early in my tenure year was a desire
to reduce management at the institution.
So we lower the cost of administration
and I think we need to be cognizant that when we talk
about bringing on the deans now.
Talking on the other side
of my pace was I've been known to do before.
I need to underscore what I've heard from Shelly [phonetic],
from Daryl, from Coleman, from Ann,
and I'll say what I said before, I am their deans now.
I am their interim dean now.
And I can tell you without question,
both those divisions need leadership, absolutely,
critically need leadership, and if I may take a moment,
I want to give a particular shout, if you will,
to the work that Daryl
and Coleman have done representing those two divisions
'cause I think they've done an outstanding job the past six
months that they've worked with me.
So there's no question that they need leadership.
And so, I don't want it to be, assume that I'm saying
that I don't recognize the value and the benefit
and the importance of deans for both two divisions, but,
you know, but physical side of my being says we have
to be cognizant of that.
>> Okay, I'm going to go, Coleman, and then Dave.
>> I'm raising my hand because, because my colleague, Ann.
>> So, Ann would you like to speak to the room?
>> She's just speaking quite--
well, I think that Ann can say this we'll wait,
let me-- you know.
[Laughter] [Inaudible Remark]
>> Just get up and talk.
>> Okay. But the-- the physical impact of getting people
like Daryl and myself compared to a dean, it well,
it is significantly different perhaps, I guess, really would
but there is an impact, right?
>> But it's released on assignments.
>> Right, you're the one who knows.
>> All right.
I just don't understand why our divisions have
to be this sacrificial lamb in this whole situation.
I mean; we're giving up-- just because we happened to be
in the situation where our dean's "retired," [laughter],
we're trying to be in a position now where we haven't had anybody
in the last year, and this had been the worst hardship and I--
and I've enjoyed working for Dr. Bell
but it's a hardship for him as well.
It's been a lot of work for Daryl and Coleman too
in this business, myself as well.
But I don't understand why we, it's just because we're
in this position, we should be able to consider that we have
to be the sacrificial lamb to give up our deans so that,
and not that I don't think these other positions are important,
I think they are, the CTE dean especially, that is kind
of a place where we could go, you know,
which are extremely important in our vocation and, but I--
and I don't know where the money would come from.
But I pay to think that's the reason why this decision would
be made is through monetary business primarily.
And I [inaudible], we are in discussion with [inaudible].
>> Coleman.
>> Yeah, I just-- really brief.
But one of the greatest challenges
that I've had faced is the fact
that I'm really not a manager, and I'm just a peer.
And so when you try to rally the troops to get them
to do something, it's really hard because some
of these people, [laughs] and like you said, Bob,
at the CNI meeting, you said, you looked at me and said,
"It's like rounding up kittens."
You know, sometimes it is just that, and it's really difficult
when people really would rather be in the classroom
or whatever they want to do.
And so, it's-- they're just some tremendous challenges and I,
you know, the job that I've been doing this semester is
completely different than the one Bob was going
to be doing as well.
I'm solving more problems.
I'm-- you know, having faculty disappear for one reason
or another [laughter] but you know,
and then having to replace them--
>> Disappear.
>> -- and take care of student's needs.
But it's been, it's really been--
well it's been more student services almost,
and faculty needs that I've had to address,
and it just would be a lot more helpful, I think, for--
well, and I know that you do probably agree with this,
but if we did have, if there was a dean--
>> Right.
>> It would help in that process tremendously.
>> Yeah, at--
>> And I just think that--
>> [Inaudible], please.
>> Balancing off to you Dr. Bell, when you speak of the CT,
the importance of the CT and the connected business
that I don't see how reducing on the business division
when you're saying the priority of business is to connect
with community, but yet you take that--
the dean shipped away from that division.
And as I see in reflecting, Coleman said, and I think also,
Ann, our broad visions have been kind
of bouncing around for a while.
And I know I've been busted and Gary from--
Coleman, the guy over there.
[Laughter] We've been-- we've been putting our effort to try
and be the best that we can.
I know, using that leadership but people still come to us
and ask us names, and I'm not the dean,
but they look at me like I'm one.
I mean, I'm not merely saying, we're just, still help me out,
can you solve my problems, I mean, I'm not the dean.
I don't care who you are, just solve my problem.
[Laughter] What they're looking for that is--
it's problem solving, and then when I reflect on going back
to our divisions and where, you know,
we're going to have directors and we're going to have
to be reporting with this position,
I think again our division would be like,
our whole group would be like, "Well, where are we at?
What happened to us?"
As far as the morality, enthusiasm of our group,
we would be depressed a bit, as far as where are we sitting
in this whole operation of PCC.
That's [inaudible].
>> I appreciate that.
And I think that all these comments are extremely important
and very helpful because it basically underscores the
importance of leadership
or wherever the leadership comes from, and the importance
of supporting the faculty.
One of the wonderful things about this time of year,
you get to go banquets, you get to go award ceremonies
and you get to see the miracles that happen and they happen
because of our faculty.
So our responsibility as administrators is
to support this faculty as best we can in whatever the context.
So I'm sure however this plays out,
Dr. Bell has heard every word you've said,
I certainly have heard it.
And we'll do-- we'll continue
to do the best thing that we can do.
Alice?
>> Yes, excuse me.
I know we are making a lot of sacrifices
because of budget cuts and everything,
but my question is will we be able
to open any classified positions to help out with, you know,
all the hard work also 'cause they know a lot
of classified employees have retired.
>> Yeah. I can't answer that question specifically
but I guess I would say that--
>> That's a suggestion.
>> Right, but there's a great-- there's obviously a great deal
of respect for our classified colleagues in the work
that you do 'cause clearly,
we couldn't do what we do without you.
>> Thank you.
>> Dave, first minute?
>> Yeah, I'd like to call for the vote on the motions.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Can we have Crystal?
>> Could we just clarify that motion one more time?
>> Yeah, exactly, let's have one more--
let's have one more shot at it.
>> Oh, it's a three-part motion.
>> Are we going on each part separately?
>> I'm open to that.
>> And also to provide the question.
>> I think that's--
>> Together or separately?
>> I-- let's, we just have to move
to divide the question, is that what I heard?
>> Also to that--
>> Okay. So, let's have the first part of that motion.
>> Okay.
>> So the first part of the motion would be
that the business division be moved to column 1
to have a permanent dean.
>> Okay. And do we have a second on that
and do we have any further--
>> The motion has already been seconded.
>> Yeah. It's just--
>> Okay. And no for the discussion, correct?
All right.
How about Dr. Bell?
>> She had no discussion but I have a question.
I am sitting here with all the compliments of the world
but I need them for comparing-- am I bully member?
>> No. [Laughter]
>> I am not supposed to--
>> I was just going to go over.
[Simultaneous talking]
>> I don't vote.
It's not because I don't care.
>> I was just going to go over--
[laughter] I was just going to go
over who the voting members are just to remind everybody.
And the voting for the Academic Senate are Edward Martinez,
Panella is sitting in for Dustin Hanvey, and Dan Haley is not--
Martha is sitting in for Dan, thank you.
Classified Senate, the voting members are Gary,
Debra and Julio, all three are present.
Managements Association, the voting members are Crystal,
Al Hutchings and Dale, and I thought I saw Al, but he--
Al is not here, right?
And then for the students, the voting members are Alex,
Simon and Mon-Shane and I'm assuming Chris is sitting
in for Alex today.
And then for CSEA777 is Dave Krause.
POA James Karch is not here.
Faculty Association, Roger, Roger is here.
In confidentials is Jo Ellyn.
So those are the voting members of the committee.
So, having said that, we have a motion on the floor to--
I believe to move the business division over into--
>> Continue with deans.
>> -- to continue with deans in divisions, is that correct?
>> Yes. And he did specify with a permanent dean.
>> Continue.
>> Column 1.
>> Okay. Column 1.
All right.
So, all those in favor, signify by raising your hand, please.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
10 in favor.
All those opposed?
1, 2, 3, okay that motion carries.
The next motion I would assume would be
to move the ENT division over into column 1.
>> Correct.
>> Correct?
All those in favor, signify by saying I?
>> I.
>> By raising your hand, I'm sorry.
[Laughter]
>> You raise hands for that.
>> So, I accept 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
All those opposed raise your hand, 1, 2, 3.
And then Roger, would you restate the third part
of that motion, please?
>> Third part the motion would be
to consolidate the CTE dean position with the director CTE
and workforce development
to have one position instead of two.
>> Okay. All those in favor,
signify by raising your hand, please.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
All those opposed?
>> Abstention.
>> And also, please raise your hands
if you're abstaining please and two-- three abstentions.
Thank you.
Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> So that takes us to-- there's a couple of more columns here
to talk about at least.
But actually, we need a motion on column 1, do we not?
Now as amended.
>> Why don't we just make it?
>> If I could just make a comment on the proposal,
I'm actually very uncomfortable on voting on all of this.
Because we had-- we're only just seeing a lot of this and,
you know, Planning and Priority spent countless times on this
and then suddenly, we've go the Academic Senate division
and the College Council division, if I had my way,
this would frankly go back to Planning and Priorities
and I think that's really where they should--
discussion should be happening,
it's back to Planning and Priorities.
>> You know, I think, I hear what you're saying
but there are lots of veteran people in this room
who have either been on various committees or also been a part
of discussions in the hallways and in offices.
And I think we have-- here we are, you know, [inaudible]
and we have a pretty good sense
of the implications of this discussion.
So I'm going to respectfully disagree, I think,
actually this is a very informed body and we're taking
into account all the other deliberations
and I think it's a very credible vote.
So, I just think it's very good.
This committee is very sound and I really appreciate the fact
that you came and help clarify certain issues.
Thank you.
>> David?
>> Yeah, I don't want to make sure that we, for column 1
that it does say continue with permanent deans and divisions,
not just continue with dean--
>> Is--
>> I believe that was one thing--
>> Yes that the--
>> Do we have motion on column 1?
If we're going-- I mean if we're going to--
>> I move to.
>> I mean the question is are we going to continue work our way
through this by column or is there another way
that the body would like to deal with this or would the body not
like to deal further with this?
Edward?
>> Well, just on column 1, it says continue with deans
and divisions, the truth is that many
of those divisions have permanent deans,
some of them have interim deans and then we'll see what happens
with business and ENT.
So, it's a mixed bag to be honest and I would say
that that's where we are and probably
where we should be at the present time.
>> So we should know what-- we don't want then your deans
to be permanent, I mean--
>> It's simply a rec-- it's about--
this is a recognition for one year.
This is the interim plan and I said we simply recognize
that those divisions are where they are.
>> Okay. So, there-- yes?
[ Inaudible Remark ]
>> Approved by the Academic Senate.
>> Right. Those are approved with the understanding
that those will eventually be permanent deans, okay?
But on this green form that we're looking at,
I'm simply saying that we need to recognize
that the divisions are in various states with their deans.
Just some are indeed ongoing permanent,
some of them are interim and we'll see what happens
with business and ENT.
>> Right. So again, I just remind everyday that this is,
you know, the College Council is consultative of body.
We are consulting, we will be sending forth what we
or recommending.
And, however, all of this shakes out
and in what capacity these positions are pointed,
named or what have you is subject
to further discussion at levels above us.
Simon. Thank you.
>> I'm going to move to approve column 1
of the College Council proposal
with the memos we just made as stated.
>> Okay. So, column 1, adding business in ENT to that list?
>> Yes.
>> Do I have a second?
>> I second.
>> Mon-Shane is seconding.
Further discussion or any discussion I should say?
All those in favor, signify by raising your hand
on your way out, Simon?
[Laughter] 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
10. All those opposed?
1, 2. Abstentions?
Okay. So, that's columns 1, 2, and 3 what could-- yes?
>> I'm going to move to approve the fifth column,
realign departments and divisions as stated.
>> Do I have a second?
>> Second.
>> I do have a good question.
>> Certainly.
>> I believe analysis of all the members, am I correct?
>> That is correct.
>> Okay.
>> You didn't call on me.
>> Oh I thought I did, I apologize.
So do we need to go back and revise the votes?
I'm sorry.
>> Why don't we give chance to vote.
>> Okay. Then we're going to have to do this over again.
[Laughter]
>> Great.
>> So I'm sorry, are we going to go back and do every vote again?
>> I guess we are going to, unless you want
to just cast your vote right now and tell us.
[Inaudible Discussion] So, 4 votes.
>> Would it make a change?
>> No--
>> No but I think we should record Alice's vote
if Alice wishes to make the vote.
[Laughter]
>> Okay.
>> Well, which ones are we voting?
>> Okay. Well, let's just talk
about moving the business division into be continue
with deans in divisions.
So, column 2 in the column 1 for business.
[Laughter]
>> Column 1--
>> All eyes upon you.
>> I said that was a majority vote.
>> Yes it was.
>> I vote yes.
>> Okay, so we'll add one to the I's for that.
What about ENT into that same column?
>> Also, I think the majority vote
that everyone is what I was voting for.
>> Okay. So we'll just add you to the majority vote
for all of-- for all of the--
>> Majority.
>> All of the votes, very good.
>> -- what's happening.
>> Okay, that's fine, thank you.
>> Okay, so that's true.
>> Chair apologizes is for that oversight.
Okay. Now, I think we're back to column 5 and on column 5,
did we have a second for that?
>> I second.
>> Oh, yeah.
Roger seconded.
>> Is that on the realigning?
>> Yes.
>> Number 5.
>> Realign departments and division according
to what those 4 elements are in that line.
All those in favor, raise your hand.
>> I have question.
>> Yes, Crystal?
>> For Kinesiology, Health and Athletics,
are we actually moving Athletics over to Natural Sciences
or just Kinesiology and Health?
>> This is stating Kinesiology, Health and Athletics
at the moment, the whole division.
Dr. Bell, did you want to say anything to that?
>> Well, I would recommend that is more as kinesiology
and health not athletics, the configuration of any case
with athletics, in my opinion should not be aligned
on the Natural Science, so that should stay aligned
on the either instruction or to any services but not
under Natural Science.
>> All right.
Was that an amendment, Crystal?
>> I'd like to make amendment that Athletics be separated
out from Kinesiology and Health.
>> All right.
The second-- Roger, you made second?
>> Yes.
>> Are you willing to do that?
Basically, what the--
>> I need information because I don't really understand.
I'm not disagreeing at all because it does sound
like kinesiology is appropriately going
to Natural Sciences but I agree,
I don't know anything about Athletics.
>> I think the best would, if there is a second
to the amendment and then we went
on to discussion on the amendment.
>> All right.
Do we have a second on the amendment?
>> Right.
>> Thank you.
[Laughter] Now--
>> Would someone like to tell me what we're voting on, please?
>> Yes.
>> The amendment is to remove athletics from the Kinesiology,
Health, and Athletics.
>> And put it away?
>> That has not been stated.
Crystal?
>> I believed maybe I can help here.
What initially, is we're voting on column 5
and I opposed the question of,
it says KHA which would say Kinesiology,
Health and Athletics would be moving to Natural Sciences.
And the question I imposed in the amendment I made is
to separate out Athletics and just move Kinesiology and Health
to Natural Sciences, and let Athletic stay
with their director.
>> Now, they got it.
>> Dale?
>> Where would then Athletics stand in the instruction?
>> What Crystal just said is that it would remain reporting
to the athletic director which currently reports to Dr. Bell.
>> Athletics currently in the organizational chart reports
for the vice president of Student and Learning Services.
Athletics will continue to report to the vice president
of Student and Learning Services.
The reason that appears here is because it was caught
up in the entire discussion of Kinesiology,
Health and Athletics, that's all in one division.
Athletics really does not represent itself
as an instructional division.
Kinesiology and Health really are, so I will support that.
>> Where would it fall?
>> Athletics would not fall on the screen sheet,
it reports to the vice president of Student
and Learning Services,
one of the many helps that Dr. Bell were--
>> Athletics would configure the same way as enrollment services.
It would be a service that can pass in every report
to the vice president of Student Learning and Services.
>> Okay. So we have an amendment on the floor,
Simon here for the discussion.
>> Yeah. I just-- when we heard at Planning and Priorities
and you were there, maybe you can help me.
We heard from someone from KHA, were they part
of the K, the H, or the A?
>> All of it.
>> All of them.
Well, we're moving-- you're asking what we're moving?
>> No, I'm asking, 'cause there was someone who came
to public comment on the [inaudible] and he was from one
of those three or all of them
and his comments I would like to base on that
>> Ed and then Gary.
>> Well, that was Gary Wood, the athletic director and--
>> John Wood.
>> I'm sorry-- John Wood, sorry, the athletic director,
but I think it's important to think of athletics
as the sports programs, [inaudible] sports programs.
At the present time, they're managed in KHA
but as Crystal has indicated,
it's only the Kinesiology faculty
and the Physical Education, activity course, not activity,
Physical Education, theory courses
and health education courses that would be moving
into Natural Sciences.
>> In that case, I'm not opposed to the idea of it all.
I think it makes sense.
However, everything else that we have done so far has gone
through an extensive public comment period.
And all through this period, we've been talking about KHA.
We haven't talked about K and H, and then A separately,
and so since we've given so much consideration and opportunity,
especially we've heard from two divisions, if we wouldn't have
to split up the third one in the college council,
without anyone else hearing anything about it,
I think that we've set a huge double standard.
>> Yeah.
>> That I-- and a precedent that I don't want to set.
>> Okay, so we have in a minute, Martha wants
to say one more thing.
>> Just one more thing, and that's--
I would really appreciate to hear either--
or would like to hear from a faculty in that area.
Because in some cases these classes
that are theoretical may have an activity component as a part
of it but the, you know, I'd like to hear
from the faculty in those areas to--
>> But this time, you know,
it's the physical education theory classes that are moving,
not the PE activity classes.
>> No, no, I understand that.
>> Okay.
>> But I understand that you can also, holistically teaching,
you could also construct the course that has both theory
and activity as it stands right now.
But if we separate it where we go into some
of the muddier waters that we were talking about in the senate
with the separation of CIS versus CS
and teaching across and--
>> Right.
>> -- how that would work.
>> Okay, well certainly, you would--
you can't separate course content
in that way, that's true.
But remember the activity part here is this--
>> I understand that part.
>> -- the sports activity classes.
>> But I would really like to hear from faculty in that area
in order to get clarity about that kind of separation.
>> Okay, Gary one more comment
and then we'll vote on the amendment.
>> Just as a reminder, we had not only AD Woods
but we also had Joe Peron, we had Rudy,
I think his last name is Aguilar.
>> Aguilar.
>> And they both clearly stated that if they had to move,
their "cousin division" was natural science
and that they are in lined
with taking athletics solely under Bob Bell.
>> Right, so, it seems like no matter who we heard from,
they were content and happy with the notion of KH and A moving
over to Natural Sciences.
Okay, so with that said we have the amendment on the floor
which is basically to remove Athletics from Kinesiology
and Health and agreed that that should continue
to report directly to student services.
>> I'm sorry one of their, just-- I have a question?
>> Yes.
>> Currently, is not KHA an instruction division?
>> Yes it is.
>> So currently it's an instruction division,
even though Athletics reports to Student Learning Services.
How is it that if it moves
into a different instruction division,
it can no longer continue to report to student [inaudible]
to the way it does currently?
>> I-- no one said it couldn't.
>> Okay.
>> No one said that if this whole thing goes
as a package that--
>> It won't be--
>> Dr. Bell and-- exactly.
>> Okay, in that case, I'd-- yeah, I don't see--
>> Okay, so let's vote on the amendment please.
All those in favor of the amendment, raise your hand?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, this is going to be close.
All those opposed to the amendment?
1, 2, 3, no, 1, 2, 3, 4, so the amendments and can we abstent--
[laughter], and 2 abstentions.
>> I abstain.
>> 1, 2 ,3, 4 abstentions.
So the amendment--
>> 5.
>> 5 abstentions, so the motion passes, okay?
So now, we'll make a notation
that Athletics would be a pulled from this, period.
>> Wait, wait, wait, what was passed?
>> The vote was--
>> 6 to 4.
>> 6 to 4 in favor.
>> Oh, you had to vote now in order to--
>> Yes.
>> Yes. [Laughter]
>> Okay, we got it.
>> Okay, so that then leaves the remainder
of column 5 to vote on, correct?
>> Yes.
>> So all those in favor of--
>> I-- I'm sorry--
>> -- the-- yes, I'm sorry.
What did we lose here?
>> I would actually like to divide the question
and take each one individually again since we've now made a--
it might be a substantial change.
>> Okay, so that's a request to divide the question.
We have no choice but to do so.
So we'll do that.
Before we do that, I think Coleman would
like to say something to us.
>> Oh I'm sorry, there's been a request that I just restate,
so vote on architecture and fashion
and computer science than KH.
>> Individually?
>> Yes.
>> Right.
>> Okay, my name is Coleman Griffith,
and I'm the coordinator of the Architecture program and I would
like to ask that the Architecture program remain
with ENT for the interim period, that 1-year interim period.
As I've said in the past, architecture-- for my, I can't--
I'm 1 of 2 faculty members, but I would like to say
that I cannot see the advantage to us moving at this time
and tell there is a greater understanding
of what is happening in the college as a whole.
And, I would greatly appreciate that consideration.
>> Okay, so we are going to divide the question,
starting with the item that the Coleman just spoke to,
which is the realignment of the architecture discipline
to the division of visual arts and media studies.
All those in favor, signify by raising your hand please?
1, 2, 3, 4-- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8 in favor, all the--
[Inaudible Remark] All those opposed?
1,--
>> What was the question?
>> Yeah, 'cause it wasn't clear.
>> The statement--
>> Well, I, okay, I thought it was clear,
but I'll try it again.
The question was we are voting for the relocation
of Architecture to VAMS, which is what is stated right there.
>> But Coleman doesn't want to.
>> But, but-- was it--
>> Coleman doesn't want it.
>> Was it after the interim year or like
after a year or was that--
>> It's says the interim has--
[simultaneous talking], it stands right now.
So do I need to revote?
>> Yes.
>> All those in favor of relocating Architecture to VAMS,
please raise your hand?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Julio did you-- let me see your hand.
Okay, 9 yes, all those opposed, please raise your hand?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, motion passed.
>> Can I say something?
I want to thank Coleman for his comments, for sharing.
And, I am struck by how many people
on this council just heard 1
of 2 tenured architecture professors on the campus speak
against the motion and then vote against him.
I find that interesting.
Thank you Coleman for your sharing.
>> And I didn't get to ask for abstentions.
Is any, was anybody, did anybody abstain on that vote.
No abstentions?
>> If I may, I'd like to respond to that.
Architecture, we talked about this a lot in planning
and priorities and I voted for the status quo planning
and priorities because we had a very long discussion
as part of that committee.
And well that we greatly respected what you said,
I can't remember the entirety of the substance of the discussion
because it was a few weeks ago now.
But there was compelling reasons to make that vote
and it wasn't-- we had to consider the testimony,
so I voted because of planning and priorities.
[Inaudible Remark] We talked about them during the planning
and priorities meeting and for the life of me, my mind is blank
but I do remember voting for what is the status quo
which is what the interim plan approved
after our two-hour discussion.
>> All right, may-- then I move to the--
may I move to the next question before us?
Next question before us is the moving of the Fashion discipline
to Visual Arts and Media Studies.
All those in favor, signify by saying,
excuse me, by raising your hand.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, in favor.
All those opposed, and all those abstaining?
One abstention, [inaudible]--
>> I was a yay, but I was like--
>> Okay, so did we get the right count?
All right, so let's do it again.
All those in favor , please raise your hand.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, in favor,
all those opposed, please raise your hand?
No one opposed, all those abstaining please raise
you hand?
1, thank you.
Okay, that brings us to a computer science to math,
all those in favor of computer science relocating
to the math division, please raise your hand.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, in favor?
>> 13.
>> 13? All those opposed, and abstentions, and 2 abstentions,
13 yes, no no's or 0 no's and 2 abstentions.
Okay and I believe we already took the vote on, no,
we didn't take the vote.
Did we take the vote on kinesiology and health?
>> No, you have to do it now separately.
>> Okay, so all those in favor of kinesiology and health,
those two disciplines moving to natural sciences,
please raise your hand.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
All those opposed, please raise your hand, one,
and abstentions, 1,2,3.
Okay, now I believe column 4 remains the CEC column,
would anyone care to make a motion?
>> I'll make a motion, we approve column 1, 2, 3, 4.
>> Thank you.
Do we have second?
>> I'll second it.
>> And now a seconds, discussion?
>> Can I have [inaudible].
Yes. Can we amend or vote for architecture in VAMS because,
you know, there still maybe a component reasons why they
should move together and that was part of the [inaudible].
>> Martha, I'm sorry but we're dealing with the motion of CEC
and then after we're done with that we can come back
to your question, unless it pertains--
CEC, Community Education Center.
It's what CEC stands for, right?
Okay.
>> Point of information.
>> Yes, Roger?
>> Okay, as I look at the blue sheets, I see a full dean,
got a 6 yes, 4 no, 5 abstentions very close.
So then I look at the red
and it says dean reporting to VP of Ed Services.
I don't see that on green.
I see CEC reporting to VP of Ed Services, shouldn't it say dean?
>> It can say what the group wants it to say.
I would move to approve column 4, the addition of dean.
>> Second.
>> So that's an amendment.
>> I was just going to say that's an amendment.
We already had a motion.
So the motion that we have--
okay, so we need to vote on the amendment,
the amendment request is to add the word Dean reporting to VP
of Ed services until 6-30-13, then reporting to VPI,
is that correct amendment?
>> Yes sir.
>> All right.
All those in favor of the amendment,
please raise your hands?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
All those opposed
to the amendment please raise your hands?
1, 2, 3. All those abstaining?
One abstention.
So now we have an amendment but we need a motion
on the column as amended.
>> Okay, it's already been moved
>> Has it been moved?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay, so the column has been moved and as amended.
Further discussion?
Chris?
>> Yeah. Not that I'm opposed to it,
but I'm just actually curious as to the addition
from the Academic Senate as to why it's the VP of Ed Services
for a year or so and then VP Instruction.
>> That reflects the thinking of the CEC faculty who were there
at the Academic Senate meeting.
CEC has traditionally reported to the VP of Instruction.
In light, however, of Doctor Bell's heavy workload, we had--
we recommended to get a break for a year from CEC
and that it would go back to his purview
after June the 30th 2013.
>> And if I could add, this is a good compromise given the
discussion that came out of Planning and Priorities
which was I voted against it going to Ed Services.
I think this is a good compromised position.
>> Okay, for the discussion on the motion.
All right, all those in favor of the motion as amended,
raise your hand please?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
12 in favor, all those opposed?
1, 2, abstentions?
One abstention.
All right, I believe that takes us through the assignment.
>> I think Martha wanted to do something.
>> And so-- oh, Martha, it's right on the VAMS people.
>> Yeah, and then I have to run up to the Tea real quick.
I wanted to try to talk about amending the motion
for Architecture to VAMS.
It still would be in keeping with the discussion then
and vote it from Planning and Priorities to say
that architecture wouldn't move to VAMS for this next year
and wait for this next year before moving.
>> I'm going to turn-- I'm going to turn to my Brown Act expert,
Simon and ask, is this something that we can do?
>> Yes, we can decide to reconsider a vote.
What it requires is a motion to reconsider and someone who is
on the prevailing side
of the original motion needs to make it.
So one of the people have voted "yes" on architecture
to VAMS would need to move to reconsider it.
And that would need to be seconded and voted upon in order
for us to reopen discussion and then a second vote.
>> Okay. So if someone-- Martha, I don't want to get ahead of you
but is that what you're asking?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, Martha is making the motion as someone who is
on the prevailing side--
>> I'm sorry.
>> Oh, no she can't because she was on the opposite side of us.
>> I'm asking that somebody make the motion.
>> Yes.
>> That's right.
>> Yes.
>> Given that I-- I don't think the discussion is great,
I'll make the motion.
>> Okay, so Simon is making the motion, is there a second?
>> I'll second.
>> Dave did--
>> Dave, did you vote in favor of the original motion?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, there is a motion on the table to reconsider.
And is there a discussion among the council members?
>> We can't discuss that motion.
>> Well.
>> We cannot?
We cannot, okay, and no discussion.
All right, so, with that in mind.
>> What are we doing now?
>> No, I'm sorry, is it to--
>> To reopen the discussion and vote on Architecture to VAMS.
>> Oh, I see.
>> Following the Brown Act-- it's probably just a procedure.
It's probably [inaudible], right?
Probably for procedure.
So the motion is to reopen.
All those in favor of reopening, please raise your hand?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
All those opposed raise your hand, 1, 2, 3, 4.
No, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 abstentions.
All right, so the motion has been approved
to reopen the discussion or to reconsider the motion
of architecture to VAMS, That's what we approved.
So, Debra?
>> I'm sorry.
And maybe I can-- is it possible to make a motion at this point
or we are we just in discussion more?
>> I think it's possible to make a motion at this point.
>> We are already in the motion.
>> There is a motion.
>> So, effectively what happened is we took the original motion
which we voted on and sort of dispensed with
and now we brought it back to the table.
>> So the original motion is now back on the table for discussion
since we dispensed with the vote,
that's what I hear is happening.
>> So I can't make a motion to--
>> Amend.
>> -- leave architecture
and it's correct division for the interim year?
>> Yes.
>> That would be an amendment.
>> So I'd like to make a motion to--
>> To amend the--
>> -- leave architecture and its ENT division
for the interim year that we're discussing here.
>> There's a motion on the floor to--
>> Second?
>> Second?
>> Okay.
>> For the discussion?
Gary?
>> I'm kind of puzzled here because I was part
of the Planning and Priorities Committee and where we--
we had a lot of people and I appreciate all the e-mails
and phone calls that I received to try
to at least help me make a valued decision.
And I look at this and we voted 9 to 3 to keeping it into VAMS.
Then, I looked at here, we voted, I mean the classified--
I mean not classified-- excuse me, Ed.
>> Yeah
>> Academic senate voted and I'm like Ed, I can't see it
but I believed it says 17 to 1 to keep it in VAMS.
>> That's correct.
>> And then yeah--
>> To move it--
>> 7.
>> To move it to VAMS.
>> To move it to VAMS.
>> And yet, I hear our argument today, sort of probably
for the first time that they don't want to go
to VAMS, and so I don't know.
>> Well, I think it's--
well, I'll let Ed speak and then Simon.
>> Well, we did indeed have this discussion
in the Academic Senate and I understand the pros and cons
but what we heard at that time
from at least the architecture faculty member who was there
that she was in support of the move.
There was a vote taken by the Academic Senate
as you can see 17 to 1, one abstention,
and so that reflects the senate vote.
>> Okay. Simon?
>> Planning and Priorities, we actually heard from you,
Coleman, to-- on this matter and you were in firm opposition
and I believe it came down to
where we felt this would be architect discipline and fell,
and it seem to fall more neatly with the visual arts
and media studies rather then the ENT division.
And that was how we based our decision on it and it sounds
like there is division among the two
and so I'm comfortable sitting with what Planning
and Priorities decided since this is where a lot
of the bulk of this happened.
That's I'm staying, sitting.
>> Debra then Crystal.
>> That-- I don't think Coleman was saying
that they didn't want to move to VAMS ever.
I think what Coleman was saying that considering there's
so much going on campus-wide right now that they want to stay
for the interim year where they are, to not create more upheaval
and more questions and problems that in the future,
if I'm understanding Coleman right, it's okay to go to VAMS
and that maybe a better fit but it doesn't make sense
to the faculty currently to do it and in an interim plan
and confuse things more just to kind of sit tight,
they don't have a dean and that it would be very disruptive
to their program is what I'm hearing.
>> Thank you.
Crystal.
>> I'm actually going to have to go with Simon on this,
that there was very clear evidence
that moving Architecture
to the VAMS was academically sound based on their curriculum
as a transfer program, most things in ENT are CTE programs,
it made a lot, and Fashion also said that they wanted to be
where ever VAM-- wherever Architecture was,
we already moved Fashion to VAMS.
We voted on that quite significantly to do that.
And I think we felt all around that what VAMS had
to offer architecture was far a greater than what ENT had
to offer architecture.
>> Okay. Coleman wants to speak--
>> I just want to say, one more thing is that,
I think that when we discuss this, we were looking at this
from the students, what were the students going to gain by this
and we felt that the alignment of the curriculum
in VAMS was far better for students.
>> Thank you.
All right, Coleman wants to speak.
Is there any member of the council who wishes
to speak before Coleman does?
Dave?
>> Yeah-- I'm sorry, Coleman.
Are you speaking for yourself or for your--
>> I'm just going to speak for myself.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> I am speaking for myself but I'm also trying--
I'm thinking about it from a student perspective.
I am thinking about the operations of the department
when it moves, I'm thinking about how everything
from settling in with new faculty, how that would work
in an interim period of time, which could
or could not be a good thing.
I'm thinking about everything from budgetary issues
such as I have to organize each semester, instructional aids
for my class, for all of the sections in ENT.
I have to deal with these things.
How-- do those budgets fly over as well?
I've got to also deal with I have competitions and things
like that, that are occurring that involve budgets and things
like that, all of that is structured currently in ENT.
There are all of these operational components
are there.
The-- many of the activities
that we do currently do actually interconnect with some of the--
that the areas that we work with now with--
we are talking about a new program
with the building instruction as you know, Crystal.
We're also working-- I've just attended an advisory committee
with engineering, proposing that they teach structures classes
that would it would enable our students to transfer
to Cal State, San Luis Obispo, and be able to--
which would be quite remarkable,
also developing an environmental systems program
with electronics, I mean with electricity,
under the current photovoltaic program.
There are a lot of compelling reasons that, you know,
where there is, you know, we're talking about just a year here.
And so all I'm saying is, is that I don't--
I'm not trying to say that it's not a good thing in the future.
I'm not, that's not I'm what I'm saying but I don't think
in the short-term that the disruption will be very good
at all.
I can tell you, things will run normally
in the fall if we were in ENT.
I cannot tell you with the same certainty that things will run
that way and just from an operational perspective,
I can't see why we're doing it,
change just to change, and that's it.
>> Thank you, Coleman.
All right I--
>> I have one more comment.
>> I've got one more comment and then we can call the question,
I believe, if it that's acceptable to the group?
>> Yes.
>> I'm not sure if anyone has taken into consideration
that I believe Mr. Coleman Griffith is the coordinator
for ENT currently.
When Architecture moves, Coleman goes with it and who's going
to coordinate at that point the ENT program
that he's got one year's experience
under his belt already, it's better than nothing.
And I hate to see that whole area have
to get another coordinator who has to start from scratch
and figure everything out when it's just for a one year period.
It doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to--
they're already without a dean and then you're going
to take their coordinator and move them to another area,
I mean to me, it just seems like that a lot of people are going
to go through a lot of grief for one year and it's not necessary.
>> Okay, I've just make a quick comment
that I don't think we can presume what decisions would be
made in terms of how that division would, you know,
would function, should that occur.
I've got two more comments, it looks like
and then maybe we can get to the question.
Let's start with Simon and then we'll go to Chris.
>> One of the things that we've lost
in this entire process is the idea
of the horizontal outcome's facilitated the horizontal
planning person, because well, one of the things
that I heard there and this isn't an argument to move
or not move Architecture.
When these divisions-- as a student, it's really concerning
to me when I hear that there are divisions or courses, I'm sorry,
that go into divisions and then suddenly they can't work
with courses from other divisions?
That worries me as a student because I would want to think
that no matter if my Social Sciences
or my Psychology class is part of Social Sciences
that I can't work with Kinesiology and Health
on a program or I can't work with anyone else in the program.
And that was one of the things that we talked
about at the very beginning of this process.
It was finding that horizontal pathway coordination removing
the silos and we've gone back to it.
And I think that's disappointing because all-- everyone is.
We're not that big of a campus.
I know it's a bit of a walk.
But I-- we can get across instead
of create these cross discipline programs and we don't have to be
in the same division for that.
That's not an argument on architecture itself right now,
I just wanted to point that out because it was mentioned
and I feel it's important to me as a student.
>> Thank you Simon.
Chris?
>> Just on the comment in regards to kind
of stealing Coleman as the coordinator, I believe that--
since we are recommending to have a dean,
if that recommendations goes through,
we would no longer need the coordinator
for that division, is that correct?
>> Next year, we--
>> Yeah, I don't want to presume how--
what's going to happen but let's just say that I'm sure Dr. Bell
and others can figure out a good way to deal with the division.
>> Right.
>> Dr. Bell, do you want to comment about that at all?
>> No I don't.
>> Thank you.
[Laughter] I didn't think so.
>> No, I--
>> Call the question?
>> Thank you.
Thank you, Chris.
>> Call the question?
>> I'm sorry, did somebody say call the question?
Good. All right, all those in favor of moving Architecture
to the VAMS division, please rai-- [Simultaneous Talking]
>> It's the-- Debra's the most--
>> After a year, after a year.
>> Of Debra's-- what was Debra's amendment.
>> After a year.
>> To keep it for a year.
>> To move or--
>> Okay.
>> Yes.
>> So we have the amendment, pardon me.
All right, so the motion is, all those in favor
of leaving architecture in ENT.
>> Until 6-30-12-- for 13.
>> Well, we don't have to do that.
We basically, as part of this interim plan,
for however long the interim plan lasts, 6 months, 6 years.
>> The motion was addressing the interim year not moving them
for the interim year.
>> Okay.
>> Did they-- the motion did have the year date.
>> I believe that they want to move after the interim year.
It's the interim year.
Now, what this clearly says is interim plan and it's
that that we're voting on now.
>> Her motion clearly said 6-30-13 so.
>> Okay. So, all right so then, so the motion is
to leave Architecture in ENT through 6-30-2013,
does everybody agree with that?
Okay. So, all those in favor, please raise your hand.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
All those opposed, please raise your hand.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
Okay. The motion--
>> Actually, I'm sorry.
I'm going to withdraw mine, I'm going to abstain.
>> Okay, so it's a tie so that means
that the chair breaks the tie.
I am going to vote to move Architecture to VAMS.
>> Well, that's the next motion so you go to cases--
>> So you vote against this--
>> Oh then I'm voting against these motion, all right.
Okay. So I'm voting against this motion.
Then, do we have a new motion?
>> I'm sorry, we're already in one.
>> Which one are we in now?
>> We're in that-- we're back to--
>> All right.
We're back to the original motion 'cause these
were amendments.
Okay. Thank you.
All right.
So the original motion is, 'cause we have
to vote to reconsider, right?
I mean we're reconsidering the original motion.
>> Right.
>> Which is Architecture to VAMS.
All those in favor of moving Architecture to VAMS,
please raise your hand.
1, 2, 3, 4 5, 6, 7, 8.
All those opposed to moving Architecture to VAMS,
please raise you hand.
1, 2, 3, 4.
All those abstaining, please raise your hand.
No abstentions.
Okay. Now, I believe that concludes the business
on this chart and I appreciate Simon's and Chris' help
on the parliamentary stuff, thank you.
All right.
The hour is late and I know several of us are supposed to be
in additional meetings.
Item 6, Standing Committee Reports, Planning
and Priority Standing Subcommittee.
I think Ed, most of what we were working on, we just dealt
with the alignment, is there anything else
that you'd like to add on that?
>> No, no.
I can tell you that Dustin is in discussion
with I think it's team 2 on Planning
and Priorities Committee about how
to carry forth the long-term discussion for next year.
I can simply tell you that that's
under discussion and stay tuned.
>> All right.
Chris and then Simon.
>> Even though I may not be around,
I know that the students would like to be included
on that discussion and as a member of team 2,
I haven't been included on at least.
And so if just, we could be in that discussion as well.
>> Exactly.
>> And what's recently happened is Valerie is volunteering
to take the place of Matt Jordan and this is
like fresh off the press, I mean within the last couple of days.
>> Valerie Foster.
>> Valerie Foster, excuse me,
biology instructor in Natural Science.
So obviously, we will do that Chris, very certain.
Simon?
>> Yeah, I want to reiterate that the students I think need
to be involved in this process.
We have been for-- I'm going to be here over the--
>> Which by the way, we need to congratulate you doing that.
Do you want to announce?
[Applause]
>> Sure, I will be returning-- yeah.
I will be returning as AS president next year
so you're not getting rid of me and my Brown Act, that's right.
>> Congratulations.
>> Thank you.
So, yeah, so I just want to reiterate that we need to--
we feel the absolute necessity to be involved in that process.
This affects students very clearly because they need
to know what their lines are and if it does come
down to Academic Senate believing
that it has the sole purview without involvement
from the other constituent groups, then I will have
to challenge that unfortunately.
And finally, I'd also like to ask the Planning
and Priorities once again go back to accreditation
and if we-- I'd like to see some sort
of accreditation report come to Planning and Priorities
for discussion to see where we are
and how we're moving forward with that.
>> Very good.
We're working out of that.
The institutional research group right now is working
on the report right so, we're sharing
with the whole colleges, so--
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Ed, do you want to speak
to the Enrollment Management briefly?
>> The Enrollment Management Committee revised the Enrollment
Management policy maybe about a month ago
that went toward the Academic Senate for discussion.
Unfortunately, because of the realignment issue,
we did not get to take a vote
on that proposed change to the policy.
We will be looking at it at our next meeting on June the fourth
and I hope that there will be a final vote at that time
and that the policy, the revised policy can go forward
to the Board of Trustees.
>> And it will compare here as an information item
at the June 27th meeting.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Let's see.
I see Vice President Camel back there
and Vice President van Pelt have been incredibly patient
and Vice President Bell we're supposed to be
in another meeting right now,
but does anybody have anything they want to say
to the group real quick?
[Laughter] All right.
I'm seeing no comments right now.
Simon, with your permission, we'll go ahead
and defer the Brown Act discussion--
>> Oh, please do.
>> Into the next meeting.
>> [Laughs] Actually, I'd like to request that next meeting,
we actually bring it back as a discussion and action item
so that we can discuss whether or not we want
to continue with the case.
>> We'll note that in the minutes
and bring it back in that regard.
Going on the table quickly announcements.
Julio, any announcements?
Gary? Dave?
No? No announcements?
Okay. Ed. Edward.
Excuse me.
>> Let's see.
Our next meeting is when?
>> June 27th.
>> June 27th, okay so that's after the end
of year academic senate breakfast
where we will be honoring retirees,
same day as commencement.
So I just want to let you know
that that event is going forward.
Again, that's Friday, June the 15th,
all folks are invited although there is a charge of 20 dollars
where the full end of year traditional breakfast
on that day.
So again, we'll be honoring especially the faculty retirees
but we certainly acknowledge classified folks
and even the managers.
And so please, I hope to see you there.
>> Yeah.
>> And if I could just make one announcement really quickly.
>> Yeah, absolutely.
>> The next meeting you'll be seeing two new faces.
Mon-Shane and Chris will not be here.
They're both transferring on.
So where are you going?
>> We wish you well.
We wish you well.
[Applause]
>> And on top of that we sincerely appreciate the truly,
truly stellar work that both of these people have done
on the committee work and in support of your students
in the college and it's sincerely appreciated.
>> It's been a pleasure.
[Applause]
>> Okay. Is there any further business
to come before the council?
I will now take this motion.
>> I second.
>> To adjourn-- and Chris will second and we are adjourned.
Thank you.
[ Inaudible Discussion ]
[ Silence ]