Approved Faculty Senate Minutes

1/25/2001

I. Call to Order

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

at 2:35 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, Jack Rose,

Jeanne Saint-Amour, Kirt Shineman, Bill Stewart and Bruce Thomas; and

Councilor-at-large Linda Smith.

Absent: David Raffaelle.

Guests: Including, but not limited to, Susan High, Ruth Callahan, Lyle

Walcott, Joseph Bednorz, John Griggs and Carl Samuels.

B. Approval of Agenda. Arnoldt moved approval of the agenda as

amended. (Shineman seconded) PASSED unanimously.

C. Approval of Minutes. Garesché distributed minutes of both the

11/30/2000 meeting and the 1/18/2001 meeting. She asked the Senate

to approve only the 11/30 minutes. Rose moved approval of the 11/30

minutes. (DePippo seconded) PASSED unanimously.

D. Treasurer's Report. Daugherty reported that he wrote one check

as the Senate's contribution towards the football championship celebration

for $324. The checking plus savings balance is $14,715.98. Hubbard

moved to approve the report. (Thomas seconded). PASSED unanimously.

E. President's Report. 1). Reed informed the Senate that President

Pepicello is leaving PC to assume a position at Chaffey College. 2). Reed

distributed memos concerning afternoon courses, particularly the reduced

tuition program tried in the early 1990s. (See Attachment 1). He indicated

that the deans of instruction district wide are considering such programs.

Garesché asked if the GCC administration was considering the Senate's

specific proposals of lower go/no go numbers and using Gus the Bus

to bring high school students to campus. Reed said it is a district wide effort that is afoot.

3). Reed distributed a report on the use of Faculty Reassigned Time by campus.

(See Attachment 2). Reed said that GCC does use a lot of reassign time, but

if administrators had to be hired to do those tasks, we wouldn't like that very

well either. 4). Garesché asked Reed if the Senate will be receiving a written

response on the issue of permanent seats on the CRC as the Senate

requested in August. Reed pointed out that the Senate discussed this

issue with President Pollack at our December meeting with her. DePippo

pointed out that her position was unclear. Reed responded that he would

ask for a written response.

II. Old Business

A. Afternoon College. Discussed above.

B. Ethics Committee. Hubbard reported that a subcommittee has been

formed and authorized to write a draft of the Code of Conduct. They

will be working from the MCCCD values statement. The goal will be

to solve problems in a non punitive manner. In the case of faculty, this

is meant to be accomplished by developing a mediation mechanism to

solve differences among faculty. The Code of Conduct will be for all

employee groups.

This mechanism will not solve all problems. Certain recent differences

have involved EEOC filings. Furthermore, some have involved a

faculty member and a chair, working in his/her capacity as chair. Then,

the chair is functioning as an administrator, and such issues would not be

amenable to an intrafaculty solution. When the issue is not an intra-faculty

problem, the President can put a letter in an employee's permanent file

or can compel a transfer.

During the last meeting of the Code of Conduct Committee is when

Herman Gonzalez told the committee that he called Ms. Davis from

Chicago, who was on the NCA Focus Team. In a subsequent private

conversation Gonzalez apologized to Hubbard for making the call.

Jim Daugherty reported that the Meet & Confer Team is also working

on a mediation mechanism that is intended to be imbedded in the

Residential Faculty Policies (RFP). It would be a mediation mechanism,

not arbitration. Participation in mediation would not eliminate an indivi-

dual's prerogative to grieve the issue, if mediation fails. Apparently, the

Faculty Executive Council was somewhat reluctant to approve this,

because it would imbed an strictly intrafaculty process in the RFP, which

has only dealt with faculty's relationship to the administration to this time.

In response to an inquiry from Reed, Joseph Bednorz said that

mediation is often highly effective.

C. Campus Climate Committee. Reed indicated that everyone should

have received a report on the committee's progress. It was meant to be

out in the fall. There will be a spring report, as well.

D. College Plan. Reed suggested that the Senate as a whole meet with

President Pollack about the College Plan. There appeared to be general

agreement. Reed suggested that Michael Holtfrerich be invited to participate,

since he wrote the most recent proposal.

E. Communication with Administration. Reed distributed the letter of

clarification that Garesché wrote to the Chancellor on 1/23/2001. It was

written in response to concerns expressed at the 1/18 Senate meeting, that

the last bullet point in her letter dated 1/4/2001, which informed the

Chancellor of the continued existence on campus of copies of the individual hand-

written responses of faculty and staff to the survey distributed in November,

could be construed as speaking for the Campus Climate Committee. The

letter distributed by Reed included the Chancellor's response to Garesché

in which he assured her that he understood her to be speaking only for herself.

(See Attachment 3).

Reed took issue with the letter. Arnoldt and Saint-Amour asked why it

was appropriate to distribute a Senator's private e-mail to the Chancellor.

Reed said that e-mail is not legally protected communication. Saint-Amour

said it may not be legally, but ethically it is. Reed dropped the issue.

Then Reed distributed a package of correspondence initiated by a letter

signed by an individual named Bryce Cunningham of Mesa. (See Attachment

4). Cunningham wrote in July, 2000 to Governor Hull, complaining of

problems at GCC with The Traveler magazine, interracial strife in the ACE

PLUS Program, complaints of discrimination, and deteriorating relations

between faculty and the President. Governor Hull sent the letter to Lisa

Graham Keegan, who sent it to the Chairman of the State Community College

Board. Included in the Senate's packet was President Pollack's letter of

response to Cunningham.

Senate discussion ensued about the possible

sources of Cunningham information, the fact that he is not in the phone

book and that his address does not exist, that some Senators have had

neighbors ask them what is going on at GCC, that we must stop being

reactive, and that the Senate is not clear what it has in its power to do

about this situation. DePippo called for a motion, but none was forthcoming.

F. Motion to Rescind Vote of "No Confidence". Daugherty explained

that he was revising his motion, because it is not possible to rescind the

faculty's previous vote. He moved that it be resolved that the vote of no

confidence is no longer in effect. ( ? seconded) Daugherty argued that

the vote is still put forward three years later as evidence of problems at GCC,

and that faculty are willing to work with President Pollack to resolve campus

problems. In response to concerns that such a ballot could divide faculty

further, he suggested that he is very sure such a ballot would receive

overwhelming faculty support.

Other Senators wanted to know if this was intended to be a "vote of

confidence", even though it actually states only that the previous vote is set aside.

Concern was expressed that it confuses the issue of whether the faculty are willing

to work with the administration and whether they support President Pollack's

leadership. It was pointed out that the Senate never suggested that

the vote of no confidence meant that faculty would not work with the

administration. In fact, the Senate has continued to work with the administration

since the vote. Others asked what change had taken place in President

Pollack's actions that warranted a reevaluation of the vote of "no confidence".

It was pointed out that Jeanne Saint-Amour, Kirt Shineman and Ruth

Callahan had been asked at the 1/18 Senate meeting to write a proposal,

derivative of Saint-Amour's motion at that meeting, indicating faculty's

continued willingness to work with the administration. Other Senators pointed

out that the Senate was being hasty in its consideration of this motion, that this

item should have been presented under information for a future vote, that we

have just completed a survey with respect to President Pollack's leadership,

and that we are preparing to do a campus climate survey, so that this ballot

would be overkill.

The question was called. FAILED. Yea: Smith, Barstack and Arnoldt.

Nay: Rose, Hardin, DePippo, Stewart, Thomas, Hubbard, Daugherty,

Bohlender and Garesché. Abstain: Hofer. Discussion continued.

Some Senators questioned whether this motion was being considered

because of concerns about GCC accreditation. Concerns were repeated

about splintering the faculty further.

The question was called. PASSED unanimously. Reed then asked Rose

what he thought about the issue. Rose suggested different wording of the

motion, which Daugherty accepted as a friendly amendment. Amended wording:

In a spirit of cooperation and of fostering fruitful dialog, it is resolved that the

vote of no confidence from 1997 is no longer in effect.

Discussion resumed. This amended language was readily accepted by

some Senators as clarifying the motion. Others thought it exacerbated

the confusion between whether this motion is intended to express faculty's

eagerness to work through problems with the administration or is to show

support for President Pollack's leadership. Vote taken. PASSED Yeas:

Rose, Stewart, Thomas, Smith, Hubbard, Daugherty and Bohlender. Nays:

Hardin, DePippo, Arnoldt and Garesché. Abstain: Hofer.

III. New Business. (Taken out of order, as Arnoldt had to leave shortly).

A. Legislative Committee. Arnoldt reported that the Faculty Executive

Council feels a need to resurrect the Legislative Committee of the

FEC. Legislation is being proposed, and faculty are not organized to respond.

Arnoldt further reported that Jack Lundsford and Chris Bustamante, MCCD's

lobbyists, reported to the MCCCD Board that the Governor's Budget Proposal

recommends 20% of the funding of on-campus classes for dual enrollment classes.

They suggested that this would kill dual enrollment.

B. EBAC (Employee Benefit Advisory Committee). Arnoldt reported that

the Board voted three/zero to approve EBAC's benefit proposal for this year. Gene

Eastin and Linda Rosenthal abstained. Rosenthal considers it unfair that married

employees receive more benefits than unmarried employees. Contreras voted

yes in order to see benefits in place for the start of the year, but indicated his

intention to vote no next year if premiums continue to increase.

Arnoldt also explained that there is concern that retirees too young to go on

Medicare are faced with health care premiums of as much as $900/month. Even

if they are willing to accept very diminished benefits, premiums run more than

$300/month. EBAC would like to form a committee with faculty representation

from each campus to unite with retirees to attempt find other insurance options.

Trish Hofer volunteered to represent GCC.

IV. Information (Continues out of order).

B. Campus Forum. The next Campus Forum will be February 15th, from 2-3.

V. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned without completing the agenda at

5:10. Next meeting will be Thursday, February 22nd at 2:30.

Respectfully submitted,

Gay Garesché, Secretary

PS Senate President Jim Reed has attachments.