V. ACTION ITEMS:

1. Curriculum Committee Recommendations: M/S/P (Samad/Flores) to adopt the recommendation regarding course actions by the Curriculum Committee. Other curriculum issues were pointed out:
   1. 1. The Senate should review the list of courses with advanced status to ensure that the list is current and complete.
   2. 2. Distance Education Guidelines were recently received from the Accrediting Commission. B. Baity stated that she sent them to K. McMahan, distance education coordinator.
   3. 3. Several faculty, including D. Beaulieu, K. McMahan, B. Baity, E. Shibata, and A. Ng, will be meeting on February 23 at 12:10 p.m. in the Library to discuss the future of the Information Technology Department at ELAC now that V. Gupta is leaving. All faculty are invited. Of particular concern is who will be named manager and to whom the manager will report.
   4. 4. Consuelo Rey announced that a group of Social Science instructors will be meeting February 23 at 2 p.m. regarding a labor studies initiative to establish a program at East.
2. Vote on Proposed Professional Development Handbook: Discussion continued from the previous meeting on what activities qualify for professional development.
   1. The Social Sciences Department proposed a number of changes that were distributed to senators via e-mail.
   2. D. Senensieb questioned whether the Senate is the proper forum to pass this handbook because the decision can affect someone’s pay. Up to a week’s pay could be lost if a certain rule is set up and the majority really did not agree. The Senate may not represent the majority opinion due to its voting structure.
   3. D. Beaulieu said we do not have to vote today. It is our duty to vote responsibly. As an aside to the discussion, he noted that we have to deal with the Senate representation issue. It is like a festering sore. A. Samad agreed, pointing out for example that Social Sciences is really five separate disciplines with only one vote.
   4. L. Gaines said that she feels she is representing her department and we need to take a vote.
   5. E. Flores asked if the regulation of professional development has been a problem at other campuses. He polled his department and got their opinion on how he should vote.
   6. D. Anderson asked when the handbook guidelines will take effect. M. Ozuna said that any activity previously completed before the handbook can be taken to the Professional Development Committee for separate consideration. Her concern is that if we wait until fall to enforce the handbook guidelines, what do we work under? She stressed that she does not want a repeat of the controversies regarding credit that occurred spring 2004.
   7. J. Hernandez suggested that the senators discuss the proposed changes first and perhaps that discussion will influence the start date.
   8. P. Palomino also pointed out that the handbook can always be changed.
   9. D. Beaulieu cited one big problem that needs to be solved: Where do we draw the line on what is professional obligation and should not count for professional development? The line has traditionally been drawn primarily in this fashion: department activities do not receive credit, except for serving on a hiring panel; campuswide activities do receive credit. This delineation has drawn objection from some departments.
   10. Senators and guests, including members of the Professional Development Committee, then presented their thoughts.
       (a) J. Kenny: do we really believe service on a hiring committee warrants credit or are we asking for this credit because there is a precedent?
       (b) D. Senensieb: Considerable time has been spent on developing a hiring process that encourages all to participate. Therefore, the incentive of professional development should be included, since participation on a panel is not part of the contract requirement.
       (c) S. Eden: we should consider this participation to be part of our job.
       (d) A. Verdun: What did we do before Flex? We did all of this stuff without pay. Was there a line of communication that allowed faculty to be involved in the process? D. Beaulieu responded that there has been opportunity to respond since January 10 when the proposed handbook was distributed via e-mail. However, the winter break created a problem for departments to consider the proposed handbook in a timely manner.
       (e) B. Moore, committee member, questioned the logic of some of the arguments and explained that the committee’s thinking was that it provides lots of opportunities for professional development credit. It considered hiring only outside of a department a professional development because the participant can learn more from such service.
       (f) C. Nagatani reported that she served on a hiring committee for a choral position within her department. She learned a lot, and spent a lot of time doing research so she could participate adequately.
       (g) J. Ishino noted that he has many responsibilities such as going to high schools and serving on hiring committees. Plus as chair of a small department, he (along with four other departments) gets no release time for the work he does. Shouldn’t he get flex credit for this work?
       (h) J. Hernandez: what we are hearing is that all departments have a lot of special responsibilities and circumstances. It doesn’t help for the Senate to arbitrate what counts. B. Moore then questioned where we should draw the line on what to give credit for when in essence we are getting paid for a week off. We have to look at what was intended through the legislation. We can’t take the “professional” out of the term “professional development.”
       (i) A. Samad: what has caused the stir is that the intent of professional development is that academicians will develop themselves on the honor system. Overregulation marginalizes that.
       (j) C. Rey: we must address how we define professional development vs. professional obligation. The committee clearly has a conception of professional obligation. Title 5 very clearly states that professional development activities are based on staff improvement, student improvement, and instructional program improvement. The interpretation is very broad. The professional development activities are really a good way to get people involved. For example, grant writing did not work until flex came along. Flex is an important tool to make sure that people actually meet their professional obligation, who otherwise would not do so. With regard to money, this flex credit is not extra pay; we would have received it anyway by teaching.
       (k) A vote was taken. M/S/P with 3 abstentions (Senensieb/Samad) that participation on hiring panels within a department will be eligible for professional development credit.
       
3. Vote on Proposed Program Review Process: D. Beaulieu provided a review of the process as discussed during February 1 and February 8 Senate meetings. The new process adds a validation component; the inclusion of a classified staff member on validation committees seems to be the only issue yet to be resolved. As the arbiter of program review, the Senate can change the process at any time. Votes were then taken on two issues:
   
   1. M/S/P with 1 opposed (Senensieb/Samad) that a classified staff member will serve on an academic unit program review validation committee; and that the representative will have a vote if a department has instructional assistants and if that department consents to the classifed member voting; otherwise, the classified staff member will be a non-voting representative.
      
   2. M/S/P (Samad/Senensieb) to accept the program review process as published with a validation committee to include a classified staff member with voting privileges as determined by the previous motion.
      Computer Applications and Office Technologies and Women’s Physical Education will be the academic units piloting the program review process this spring.

1. Treasurer’s Report: Tabled.
   
2. President’s Report: Will be presented via e-mail in the Senate newsletter.
   
3. Facilities Committee Report: Tabled.

VII. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR: None.