Present: Arvizu, Beede, DiDenti, Howell,
Kinsella, Keeler, Lozano, Maringer, Moeller, Rivera-Sharboneau, Robinson
Minutes from March 17, 2004 were tabled to the next meeting.
Bylaws 4-6-04: Joe Keeler and President Kinsella presented a draft bylaws proposal for a District Technology Committee for consideration by the group.
The proposal is modeled after the Health & Safety Committee, and reflects an equivalent representation by the 4 formal governance entities plus additional entities with special needs and interests related to institutional technology.
Importantly noted, the business process of the District Technology Committee proposal is based on consensus decision making. A consensus process eliminates majority rule voting in that no decision or recommendation emanates from the committee without consensus by all constituencies. This consensus proposal addresses prior concerns of many TechComm members that a formal voting structure with representation biased toward one of the 4 governance entities would not reflect the spirit of participative governance.
The representative form in proposal states that each of the participant groups would appoint a representative, which suggests that each group would establish a technology committee of their own and therefrom select a representative to the District Technology Committee.
President Kinsella outlined key issues resulting from Measure E which will put approximately $3 million into institutional technology plus $3.2 million into Instructional technology:
1. The Committee must set priorities and make recommendations on Measure E
investments
2. The faculty needs to instruct the administration on matters of Instructional
Technology
3. Need for assurance that technology will be made available for use by all
campus entities.
Vice-President Keeler noted that the HSC committee model has worked effectively for the campus. He stated that people on the committee must be reminded they are “representatives” and must confer with their constituent groups in the recommending process.
A discussion followed. Concerns expressed regarding only one faculty member representative. Questions that were raised included: How does one person represent the whole faculty? How do they get their input? Rosa stated that we could get input from all faculty through a listserve. We need to make the opportunity available for people to give input. It was also suggested to use staff development opportunities as a vehicle to educate faculty and staff. The committee could ask resource people to present their speciality areas during the meetings.
Larry suggested that adopting these bylaws may force the Faculty Senate to form a sub committee. The Faculty Senate will appoint a member to be the representative. When asked why should the committee be under the Faculty Senate, Larry stated that when important items get in their minutes, they usually get attention.
Vic made a motion for one or both of the instructional deans to be members on this committee (Fran & Sherrean). He stated that it is not a given that one or both of the deans should be on that committee. Currently Fran is a member of the President's Council and essentially all our technology information/recommendations are funneled through her. However, if she represents just the admin. group, then instruction might not be represented fully.
Rosa noted that the bylaws go to the board and then finally will be made into board policy, so we may need to change the wording. It was suggested that we should add a 1st level dean from instructional services representative or just add an instructional dean-for representing the instructional part. The full motion was not completely decided upon.
Another questions was raised: Who is appointing body? VP of each of these areas would appoint their representative.
Where do we go from here? Is there a consensus about this draft? The next step would be to communicate the draft to all staff, gather input and give the final report to Fran to present to President Kinsella and Vice-President Joe Keeler.
Please share the April 6th Bylaws draft with your department members, and submit your input to Fran or Larry for the next meeting.
Adjournment--Next Meeting: May 5, 2004 2:10pm BUS 120