|
Speaking of the Senate
So What Is the Plan?
by
Glenn DeLange, Academic Senate President
The
Senate’s Role
While it is difficult to imagine anything being business as usual in a
time of fiscal crisis, there is a sense in which the Academic Senate’s work
remains constant, irrespective of the budgetary challenges the college faces.
Policy and process are the senate’s principal domain.
We have less authority in the actual allocation of resources than we do
in the processes by which the college determines how to direct its resources.
The law empowers us primarily on academic and professional matters.
AB 1725 and subsequent law broadly empower local academic senates with
authority over academic and professional issues such as curriculum development,
prerequisites, degree and certificate requirements, grading policies,
educational development, standards regarding faculty participation in the
accreditation process, student preparation and success, and faculty professional
development.
Formulating
Goals for 2003-04
The senate is addressing several academic issues this year, including
implementation plans for some of the initiatives recently developed by senate
taskforces. The
senate will address implementation of Research Across the Curriculum, Writing
across the Curriculum, and Interdisciplinary Studies.
We are also in the process of developing plans that will help keep our
curriculum current (Program Sunset Process).
Additionally, we will revisit the Mutual Gains document that outlines how
the Academic Senate and Academic Affairs share AB 1725 powers at Glendale
Community College. Senators
are considering additional goals that were announced at the October 2 senate
meeting.
The
Senate’s Role in Program Review, Planning and Budget Processes
AB 1725 assigns three additional roles to local academic senates.
These roles—the process of program review, the process of planning, and
the budget process—significantly broaden the senate’s scope of
responsibility. They
focus not so much on academic issues, but rather on the process by which the
institution plans and guides its resource allocation.
The mere placement of these three roles within the senate’s scope of
responsibility seems to imply some connection among the three.
If the connection does not become evident in our campus-wide struggles
with budget, program review, and planning, the connection has certainly been
clarified by both the 1996 and 2004 WASC Accreditation Standards.
These standards direct that campus leaders develop collaborative systems
for making resource allocation decisions, that these decisions be guided by the
mission and master plan of the college, and that these decisions be based on
both qualitative and quantitative data.
The
Budget Process Revision Taskforce
Last year, the Academic Senate and the administration formed a joint
taskforce, the Budget Process Revision Taskforce.
The taskforce’s mission was to incorporate program review information
into the resource allocation process.
After a few meetings it became evident that linking the planning process
to budget and program review was unavoidable.
The taskforce has developed a first draft of a proposal to link these
three functions. As
the initial proposal begins to work its way around campus, there are several
factors that should be considered:
This process is not designed to
solve a budget crisis.
It is designed to function in good and bad times.
The plan is unique in that
faculty and administration developed it collaboratively.
Thus, it attempts to address a wide set of interests.
No campus entity should view this as “our plan” or “their plan.”
It is a joint effort. The
taskforce’s goal is to improve the status quo.
It recognizes that developing the perfect plan on the first attempt is
impossible. Reassessment
is built into the plan.
No member of the taskforce is married to this plan.
It was developed from a mutual understanding of the interests and
concerns that were brought into the discussion while developing the plan.
All levels of leadership—senate, guild, division chairs, deans, vice
presidents—were involved in the dialogue.
All agreed that the budget, program review and planning process should be
coordinated to provide key information in a timely manner.
All agreed that this coordination should lead to better decision making.
All agreed that broader input into the budget process would be
beneficial.
Speaking from the position of a senate representative, and now, senate
president, I am convinced of several things.
Budget builders would be foolish to reject the opportunity to receive
campus-wide input assisting them in building a budget that is aligned with our
mission and master plan.
The faculty would be foolish to turn down any plan that has the
reasonable hope of providing that input.
Even more important, the entire campus will benefit from the
collaborative behaviors that this process encourages.
While I believe that this plan has great potential for success, I am more
interested in the goals that this plan addresses than the plan itself.
The devil is always in the details.
We are in the difficult stage of working out the details of how to
accomplish this. Absent
a plan, the status quo persists.
Academic senators are seeking campus-wide input on this proposal.
Please discuss the Budget Process Revision Taskforce’s proposal in your
October division and department meetings.
The document can be accessed at http://www.glendale.edu/senate/.
If I can be of any assistance clarifying the intent of the taskforce,
please contact me in the senate office (x5394).
Additional participants in the taskforce include:
Mike Allen, Kristin Bruno, Ed Karpp, Jane DiLucchio, Karen Holden, Jill
Lewis, Lynn McMurrey, Jean Perry, Jewel Price, Peggy Renner, Larry Serot, and
Linda Winters.
&
Back
to top |