Skip to Main Content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

Chaparral 2017-2018: 26.5 Senate Update

Senate Update

by Piper Rooney
Academic Senate President


The statewide Academic Senate (ASCCC) held its spring Plenary in San Mateo, Northern California, from April 12th to 14th. The mood was grim.

Typically, Plenary is a time when the ASCCC concentrates on the work to be done with the Chancellor’s Office in Sacramento, and with forming as well as implementing policy and best practices at the local level. However, on Saturday, a startling number of resolutions were proposed which “urge the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO) to work with representatives of the ASCCC” or “strongly urge” the CCCCO to recall and engage in the consultative processes enshrined in Title 5.

Threaded throughout the resolutions is an alarm at the sudden loss of primary reliance on the Senate and the faculty expertise it comprises. Collegial consultation is repeatedly reasserted. One resolution, 6.02 S18, Opposition to the Proposed California Online Community College District, includes in its premises:

"Title 5 §53203 requires that 'the governing board or its designees will consult collegially with the academic senate when adopting policies and procedures on academic and professional matters,' and the proposed governance structure for California Online Community College District offers no assurance of an effective academic senate"

Another resolution reminds the CCCCO of established ASCCC positions, such as its opposition to “incentivized funding as there is little to no scholarly research that indicates performance-based funding increases student success over time, and moreover there is strong evidence that performance-based funding reduces access and opportunity for many students, creating greater inequity.”  This particular resolution, which supports Assembly Bill 2767 (Medina), calls for the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to conduct a study of the funding formula from 2017-18 in order to make recommendations for various funding formula models in response to the Governor’s current proposal.* The resolution also reminds the legislature and Chancellor’s Office that:

"The Advisory Workgroup on Fiscal Affairs that advised the California Community College Chancellor’s Office on development of the new funding formula consisted of college chief business officials and did not include faculty, yet Title 5 §53200 states 'standards or policies regarding student preparation and success' and 'processes for institutional planning and budget development’ are ‘academic and professional matters,' and Title 5 §53206 establishes the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges 'so that the community college faculty of California may have a formal and effective procedure for participating in the formation of state policies on academic and professional matters' and 'The Board of Governors recognizes the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges as the representative...before the Board of Governors and Chancellor’s Office.'"

A feeling that the consultative process has been summarily abandoned by the current Chancellor’s Office is one of the forces driving San Diego Mesa College’s April 9th vote of no confidence in Chancellor Oakley**. Whatever his reasons, Governor Brown has asked Chancellor Oakley to spearhead initiatives that are top-down, unilaterally determined, and which are being presented to the public as already having already been confirmed by the legislature. The proposed online community college (the “115th community college”), the proposed funding formula, the CCCCO’s interpretation of AB 705, all conspire to create a sense of hurtling momentum that will not slow or stop for the deliberative processes of shared governance. This lack of collaboration, consultation, and transparency dissolves trust and disables faculty’s participation in the vital mission of the community college. Because of the present degradation of the Senate’s role in policy formation, the Academic Senate of Glendale Community College has begun to draft its resolution of no confidence in Chancellor Oakley. It is hoped that 114 such votes will catch the conscience of the king.

*Dr. Culpepper will discuss this funding formula at the Senate Electorate meeting on May 3rd, CS 137 at 12:20 p.m.




Resolution 18.4.3 – Vote of No Confidence State Chancellor:  (Perigo)

1st Reading: April 9, 2018
Mover: Velez
Seconded: Parsons


Whereas, the principle of participatory governance in the California Community Colleges has been established in practice and codified in law (AB 1725);

Whereas, participatory governance only functions when it is acknowledged by all levels of administration and faculty governing bodies;

Whereas, confidence in the leadership of the chief executive of the state-wide system is integral to the effective execution of the California Community College mission;

Whereas, the faculty of San Diego Mesa College have become deeply concerned about issues of governance, including but not limited to the lack of access to the State Chancellor for conversations about policies that can have dramatic impact on our system’s operations, such as performance-based funding and the fully on-line community college,

Whereas, the Chancellor has demonstrated a lack of transparency and has not engaged in collegial consultation by excluding faculty leadership groups from meetings addressing policy matters,

Resolved: The San Diego Mesa College faculty affirms a vote of no confidence for California Community College Chancellor, Eloy Oakley.

Presented to the Academic Senate:  April 9, 2018
Approved by the Academic Senate:  April 9, 2018

Glendale Community College | 1500 North Verdugo Road, Glendale, California 91208 | Tel: 818.240.1000 | 
GCC Home  © 2021 - Glendale Community College. All Rights Reserved. | POLICE 

chat loading...
chat loading...