Approved Faculty Senate Minutes

1/18/2001

I. Call to Order

A. A quorum being present, President Reed called the Senate to order

at 2:07 in the Student Council Chamber.

Present: President Jim Reed; Vice President Carmela Arnoldt; Senators

Renée Barstack, Larry Bohlender, Jim Daugherty, Paul DePippo, Gay

Garesché, Carnella Hardin, Patricia Hofer, Robert Hubbard, David

Raffaelle,

Jeanne Saint-Amour, Kirt Shineman; and Councilor-at-large Linda

Smith.Absent: Bruce Thomas, Jack Rose and Bill Stewart.

Guests: Including, but not limited to, Tessa Martinez Pollack, Jean Ann

Abel, Alberto Sanchez, Herman Gonzalez, Kristin Bennes, Lyle Walcott,

Ruth

Callahan, Joseph Bednorz, Carolyn Percifull, Connie LaBuhn, Diana Abel,

Judy Poggi, H. Rosie Mays, Nanci Burk, James Abraham, Larry Backs, Doug

Dawson, Rene Diaz-Lefebvre, Tillie Byler, Mary Leskovsky, Duane Reeder,

Sue Oliver and Don Higgins.

B. Approval of the agenda. Arnoldt wrote a four item agenda on the

board. Reed did not call for approval of the agenda, hence the agenda

was not approved.

II. President's Survey. Reed distributed a packet of e-mail memos about

the survey distributed in November concerning President Pollack's

leadership. (See attachments at end of minutes). The memos included

correspondence among Jim Reed, President Pollack, Chancellor Gaskin, the

members of the PEC subcommittee which carried out the survey, the deans

and one memo from Gay Garesché to the Chancellor. The latter memo

informed the Chancellor that the individual survey forms, which faculty

and staff had filled out, had been copied and were still being stored on

campus early in January. That memo was the subject of the ensuing

discussion.

Hubbard, referring to a comment at the end of the memo about the

effect that copying survey forms could have on the future campus climate

study, asked Garesché by what right did she speak for the Campus Climate

Committee. Reed took issue with the tone of the memo and contended that

President Pollack had not tried to get the survey forms. Garesché

responded that she had been speaking only for herself throughout the

memo, but that if people interpreted the last statement as speaking for

the committee, that she would be happy to write to the Chancellor to

clarify that she was not. Furthermore, the Campus Climate Committee had

been told that the only change President Pollack had requested in the

survey forms was that they should be returned to her office. Also, at

the November 30th Senate meeting Reed had said that he had to leave at

5:00 to meet with Dean Abel, Herman Gonzalez and Kristin Bennes to

discuss the fact that Dean Abel had called Kristin requesting that she

bring over the survey forms, so that Dean Abel could give them to

President Pollack.

President Pollack, conceding that she had initially asked that the

survey forms be turned in to her and that it was any employee's right to

write to the Chancellor, contended that the tone of the memo was the

reason we have problems on campus. Dean Abel added a point of

clarification to say that she was out of town from December 1st through

the 11th, and had not even communicated by e-mail during that period.

Saint-Amour suggested that it was probably time to stop singling out one

Senator for criticism. Smith said, that as a member of the Campus

Climate Committee, she took issue with Garesché presuming to speak for

her. Hofer questioned what any of this had to do with the Senate. She

asked why, any time something critical of the administration came up, it

was dragged into the Senate so that the Senate always appears to be

criticizing the administration. It was pointed out that there was no

motion on the floor for the Senate to discuss.

III. Senate Statement. Saint-Amour moved that an all-employee-groups

vote take place following the pattern used by the faculty in voting, in

order to protect the anonymity of all persons, on the following

statements:

A "yes" vote will express our confidence in Tessa Martinez Pollack's

ability to serve as President of Glendale Community College and our

willingness to work with her to resolve any issues current or future

that may develop that relate to the proper functioning of this college.

A "no" vote will express our lack of confidence in Tessa Martinez

Pollack's ability to serve as President of Glendale Community College

and our unwillingness to work with her to resolve any issues current or

future that may develop that relate to the proper functioning of this

college. (Hubbard seconded).

Saint-Amour went on to explain that her reason for asking for this

vote is as follows: someone from the College called a member of last

Spring's NCA Focus Team to tell him/her that President Pollack had

received a letter of non-renewal in December which was subsequently

rescinded. The GCC caller reported that the Focus Team member was

aghast and had indicated that this appeared to be a case of Board

interference that could result in the NCA reconsidering GCC's

accreditation again. Hence, Saint-Amour's proposal is intended to

respond to the NCA's questioning of GCC's accreditation. Hubbard said

that the Campus Code of Conduct Committee was informed about the call by

its Chair, Herman Gonzalez, who is the individual who made the call.

Discussion ensued concerning whether Saint-Amour's statement would

satisfy the NCA, or whether the NCA might be more interested in a

statement that the employees of the College remain dedicated to our

mission of teaching and learning. It was pointed out that having

confidence in her leadership and being willing to work with her are two

different issues. While the faculty had expressed its lack of

confidence in President Pollack's leadership three years ago, the

faculty have continued to work with her. One Senator suggested that a

faculty vote should be independent of a vote by other employee groups.

Another Senator suggested that problems between the faculty and staff

may not have been the reason for President Pollack's letter of

nonrenewal. Another Senator contended the President has not been a good

fit with the College, and that the President attended only one Board

meeting this fall.

Daugherty explained that he has been circulating a very similar

letter among faculty, and with very little effort has accumulated

signatures from about 25% of faculty. The sentiment was expressed that

the range of faculty opinion on this issue is so great, that the Senate

could not take a position that would be sufficiently representative of

the faculty as a whole. A subcommittee was created to write a statement

that clarifies the issue. Jeanne Saint-Amour, Ruth Callahan and Kirt

Shineman volunteered for the subcommittee. The motion was withdrawn.

IV. The meeting was adjourned at 3:44.

Next meeting is January 25th, 2001

Sincerely,

Gay Garesché, Secretary

Attachment 1

E-mail which Jim Reed will supply.

Attachment 2

Reasons for this motion:

1. We need to have some method of indicating our willingness, as a

whole campus, to work out our various collegiality difficulties without

the 'help' of District.

2. It has come to my attention at one of the meetings that I have

attended that a member of the NCA committee was contacted and that

committee person apparently did not think that, given events on this

campus, our accreditation should be continued in good standing. The

events that were referred to seemed to be events coming from the

District office. If we do not find ways of distancing ourselves from

District we may find our campus being punished for actions over which we

have no control.

3. It is time that the faculty took the lead in bringing about unity and

a better atmosphere on this campus. If we do not take the lead we could

lose what little authority remains with us and, possibly, our standing

as a viable campus as well.

4. The PSA employee group meeting held last Thursday indicated their

desire to participate in such a vote. The faculty had a confidence vote

in the past and they wished to be part of such an effort at this time.

5. Several members of PSA expressed a reluctance to risk putting their

jobs on the line. It was mentioned, and I have heard this from other

sources as well, that Dr. Gaskin has a tendency to be vindictive. I do

not know this to be true. I only know that a number of people have that

impression. The method of voting used by the faculty guarantees

anonymity. No one knows how you vote. The process that is used by the

faculty also guarantees that no one will vote more than once.

6. In having all the employee groups participate in the same vote we

will demonstrate that we are a unified campus under the leadership of

the faculty.