*********************************************

                DISCLAIMER: THIS CART FILE WAS PRODUCED FOR COMMUNICATION

    ACCESS AS AN ADA ACCOMMODATION AND MAY NOT BE 100% VERBATIM. THIS IS

    A DRAFT FILE AND HAS NOT BEEN PROOFREAD. IT IS SCAN-EDITED ONLY, AS

    PER CART INDUSTRY STANDARDS, AND MAY CONTAIN SOME PHONETICALLY

    REPRESENTED WORDS, INCORRECT SPELLINGS, TRANSMISSION ERRORS, AND

    STENOTYPE SYMBOLS OR NONSENSICAL WORDS. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT

    AND MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED, PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

             THIS FILE SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED IN ANY FORM (WRITTEN OR

    ELECTRONIC) AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OR POSTED TO ANY WEBSITE OR

    PUBLIC FORUM OR SHARED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE

    HIRING PARTY AND/OR THE CART PROVIDER. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL

    TRANSCRIPT AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR PURPOSES OF VERBATIM

    CITATION.

                     *********************************************





         December 4, 2020 Faculty Senate...



         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Hi, everyone.  Welcome to our fifth and final

    Faculty Senate meeting of fall 2020, one of the most interesting fall

    semesters we have ever had, and I hope you're all doing well as we

    reach the end of this semester.

         Today we have a really full agenda, so I'm going to ask for

    everyone's patience.  I know that there are going to be several items

    on here we just don't have enough time to discuss, as much as we

    would all like, but let's please just try to get through so that we

    can be done by 3:00, because I know a lot of you have to leave right

    at 3:00, and we have some guests here as well.

         For introductions, go ahead and sign into the sign-in sheet, and

    please sign into the chat and say your name and whether you're a

    guest or a senator and if you're a senator the area you represent.

         As we do that, is there a call for an executive session?

         Hearing none, I'll go ahead and continue.  Agenda modifications

    and short announcements, there are a few agenda modifications but

    nothing really crucial.  Just little things here and there.  Nothing

    in regards to our business section.

         Short announcements, I have a few here listed on the agenda.  Are

    there any others that anyone would like to share?  Okay.  I'll go

    ahead and talk through these quickly.

         As you all know, on-time registration and late registration has

    been a topic of discussion for the last couple of Faculty Senate





    meetings, and this is an issue that was actually brought up by

    Kimlisa Duchicela.  We have met with administrators and others

    related to registration at the college a few times.

         At our last meeting, which was last week, we determined that it's

    too late for fall to make a change for the spring but that it might

    be worth thinking about converting or including more 14-week courses

    since those allow students to register after the first day of classes

    for 16-week and first eight-week classes would be a good approach,

    and we also determined that the discussion, the larger discussion

    about how Pima Community College can be flexible in terms of

    registration and keep up with some of the other institutions, online

    institutions that allow, for example, students to register at any

    time, that offer a little bit different cost structure, we want to be

    competitive with them, as well.

         So this is going to be an ongoing conversation, and we will

    continue it somehow and in some way in the spring.

         So there is an update there.  And for the Faculty Senate systemic

    justice action committee, we have been continuing to meet, and what

    we have been focusing on is I believe all of you know our syllabus

    statements, optional syllabus statements.

         So we have been working on these for quite some time, and I'm

    happy to say that at this point we have the provost's approval, and

    Dr. Mitchell's approval, to allow for these to be optional for use in

    your spring 2021 syllabi, and then also moving forward.

         So you can click on those from the agenda.  You'll see that there





    is a note at the top, and consider this a fluid document that will

    evolve over time.

         Of course we would like any suggestions for additions, and you

    will see that when they are listed there is a note that says where in

    the syllabus template the additional statements might be placed.

         So I encourage you all to take a look at this on your own.

    Again, these are optional statements, and you can choose to use them

    or not.  Most likely I'm thinking some people might use just one or

    two but really consider them the ones that speak to you.

         As for a land acknowledgement, what we are going to do is

    recommend to administrative leadership that the college work with the

    community to generate a land acknowledgement statement and place it

    on the college website, and then that could be linked to from

    syllabi.

         So that's the status there.  It took a lot of work to get to this

    point, and in addition to all of the members on the Faculty Senate

    systemic justice committee, I would like to thank so much Sage

    Hawkins, Sage's help.  Sage is a wonderful student.  I know many of

    us are quite familiar with sage.  Sage participated on our panel in

    November.

         And Hilda Ladner who helped contribute in terms of looking at the

    whole document offering suggestions here and there and then also

    helping to craft the diversity, equity, and inclusion statement.

         And finally, of course, Kate Schmidt, whose work and help and

    support has been invaluable.





         So thank you to all of those who helped contribute to the forming

    of this document in some way.

         Finally, our next area that we'd like to focus on is equitable

    assessment practices and so if this is an area that you are

    interested in or if you are interested in joining the systemic

    justice committee, you know, please contact me.  We're always looking

    for new members and fresh ideas.

         Fall 2021 scheduling update, the most recent update we heard was

    that for fall 2021 plan A is to have everything, and this is what

    department heads and deans are planning for, is to have everything

    continue virtually and online.

         However, we know there is a vaccine.  We're not quite sure how

    it's going to be distributed, the effectiveness and the results of

    that will be, at least one vaccine, and so there is a plan B.  So

    this plan B would be to move 30% of formerly face-to-face back to

    face-to-face or hybrid, and so deans are now allocating enough

    classroom space for the conversion to plan B if it is determined that

    we are at a place, and I hope, and I know all of you do too, that we

    are at that place to go resume a little closer to our normal a year

    from now.

         So there is an update there, but please know that it can change.

    We know how things in this world are a little bit uncertain, so with

    that uncertainty becomes a difficulty in establishing a clear set of

    expectations moving forward.

         Last item here, good-byes.  So I just wanted to say good-bye to





    two individuals on Faculty Senate.  Joe Brewer is not leaving Faculty

    Senate.  At least I hope Joe Brewer is not leaving Faculty Senate.

    But Joe Brewer has served as ACC representative-plus and has done

    such a fantastic job, and Joe's insightfulness and meticulousness

    with reading documents, and just, Joe, you will be missed.

         So thank you, Joe, for your years of contributing to that role.

    All those meetings in that little room at the Downtown Campus by the

    cafeteria, just appreciate all of your hard work very much.

         Also, a good-bye to Anthony Sovak who is leaving us as a faculty

    member and department head but staying with us in a new role as

    director of quality online instruction.

         So Anthony, we will miss you, your insights, we will miss how you

    identify things to discuss that other people may not see, your

    suggestions, your innovative strategies.

         I hope that you continue to still have Faculty Senate kind of

    churning or burning in your mind so that if something comes up that

    you feel would be a good item for Faculty Senate that you share it

    with us, and the best to you in your new role.

         On that, we can move on.  Are there any questions about any of

    these business items?

         >> KEN SCOTT:  I have a question.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Yes, go ahead.

         >> KEN SCOTT:  I just wanted to comment on those optional things

    that could be added to the standard syllabus.  While those are

    optional and available, faculty should speak with their department





    heads to try to make sure they don't try to put something in that's

    against the department policy, that they should definitely do that.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Any other questions?  All right.  Seeing as

    how there are no questions, let's move on to our business items and

    our first business item is approval of the November minutes.

         So I'm hoping that people have had a chance to take a look at

    these minutes, but I will pull them up here.  Be sure to check for

    attendance and make sure that if you were here you are noted.

         If you were not, please e-mail me and I will communicate that

    information forward.  And until I hear that, I will just keep the

    minutes up.

         >> HERNAN AUBERT:  I motion to approve.

         >> Second.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  There is a motion on the table and it's been

    seconded.  All in favor?

         (Ayes.)

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Opposed?  All abstain?

         All right.  The minutes have been approved.

         Our next business item is academic freedom BP, and just a

    reminder, a little bit of history here, is that this board policy has

    come before senate several times, and the idea was that it didn't

    need to come before senate any additional times just because we

    provided so much feedback and it has been integrated.

         However, after the last presentation, it was determined that some

    more faculty input was needed, and so it was revised heavily by the





    committee, and so Ken Scott is here to present on the current version

    of it and let us know what to expect moving forward.

         Ken, I'll turn it over to you.

         >> KEN SCOTT:  Thank you.  Before I go into academic freedom,

    though, I did have one more question about the first list that we

    were looking at.  For the fall, you said that we are definitely going

    to be continuing the way we are doing it now, right?

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  No, there is a plan A and a plan B.  Plan A

    is to continue as we are, just because we don't know, you know, the

    college can't anticipate what to expect.

         However, if it's determined at that time that it's safe and in

    consultation with faculty that faculty feel safe and the conditions

    are right, then about 30% of face-to-face will return to

    face-to-face, and so deans are allocating classroom space for that

    potential as the fall 2021 schedule is planned.

         So ideally we will be able to go to plan B, but because we can't

    be sure, we are planning for plan A.

         >> KEN SCOTT:  So the concerns that faculty have had about this

    is that we're supposed to have our scheduling done in the next week,

    I think we are supposed to have our scheduling done in the next week,

    and the problem is we can't get our scheduling done for fall if we

    don't know what we're supposed to do.

         It would be very, very difficult for us to go from plan A to plan

    B, because if we have students who sign up for an online class who

    think, okay, I can take these two classes and then we switch to plan





    B and say, okay, congratulations, now you have to drive from Vail up

    to Northwest, and that back-to-back class you have is now over at the

    East Campus, and it just creates a scheduling nightmare for our

    students.

         Is there any way we could try to get some kind of a definitive

    answer as to how we're supposed to schedule?

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  I believe Dr. Mitchell, and perhaps the

    provost are here, and they are much better equipped to address your

    question.

         So if Dr. Mitchell or the provost wouldn't mind unmuting and

    addressing those concerns, that would be great.

         >> Can I say something first?  I just want us to be more careful,

    I know people say online when they mean virtual.  Those are two

    different things.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Okay, thank you, Mary.

         >> DR. MITCHELL:  Yes, thank you, Mary, I do appreciate that,

    because if you remember when we started out with the virtual

    scheduling, a lot of faculty requested that we identified times on

    the schedule where they would like to meet with the students

    synchronously.

         So if we have that in place, when students know that that is the

    time that they are expected to be available for face-to-face meetings

    if we transition back to the classroom.

         One of the other things the deans are looking at is a possibility

    of a Hyflex.  Like you said, you might have a student who signed up





    for virtual class and has established their work schedule around

    that, and then we're back on campus, would they have the option to

    still join remotely?

         So those are things we have been discussing and are still

    discussing.  I can't promise you a definitive answer before the end

    of next week, because everything is really up in the air contingent

    on is it safe to bring everyone back?  Do faculty feel safe being

    back in a classroom full of 30 students if we haven't made any

    further progress regarding the vaccine and the safety of everyone

    being together.

         So I understand the challenges.  I wish I had a more definitive

    answer for you, but I'm going to ask you to bear with us for a little

    bit longer with the flexibility as we get a better sense of what the

    fall could possibly look like for us, bearing in mind all of the

    other factors that feed into that.

         >> KEN SCOTT:  On that note, could we have more time then to

    schedule for fall since we are not able to?

         >> DR. MITCHELL:  When you say "more time," tell me a little bit

    more about that because the first draft of the schedule is really the

    deans identifying courses that will not be offered in the fall

    because we roll the schedule.

         Sometimes the course that is only offered in the spring pops up,

    and if we don't catch it, it's there when it goes live, so the first

    draft is really doing the cleanup of what we know won't be offered.

         So it's not that you have to identify what courses you're





    teaching by that first draft.  It's just identifying this is a course

    that's spring only but it popped up in the fall schedule because we

    rolled, we need to remove it.

         >> KEN SCOTT:  Okay.  Thank you very much.

         >> DR. MITCHELL:  Of course.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Let's go ahead with the business item,

    reviewing revisions to the academic freedom BP which has not

    officially gone through the review process but the plan is to send it

    through the review process after we take a look.

         >> KEN SCOTT:  Yes.  Yes, if you'd like to peruse the academic

    freedom, you see it there, just to kind of give everybody a little

    bit of background, I'm going to read some stuff here.  We are still

    in the draft phase, so we can still make edits.

         We tried to stick with what the original verbiage was but found

    that really wasn't working, so we have made quite a few changes.

         We are needing to get feedback from groups such as the Faculty

    Senate, because we are valued stakeholders in academic freedom.

         This is scheduled to go before the Board of Governors in

    February, and we would have that 21-day window on or about that time

    period, as well.

         Those are some important notes that I wanted to share.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  As you'll see, there is a feedback form.  So

    at this point, we would like any additional feedback on the academic

    freedom BP to be submitted through the feedback form, because to get

    it in text in writing is the most useful at this point.





         So what I would recommend is that take another look and if there

    is anything that you'd like to comment on, please go ahead and fill

    out the feedback form.

         If there are any questions at this point, I'd take one or two.

         >> I have a question.  This is Lisa Werner.  I missed, how does

    textbook selection play into this?  Obviously there is a very keen

    wish for both administration and faculty to keep textbooks costs down

    as low as possible.

         I know that there is a movement now to have one textbook per a

    given course throughout the district.  However, sometimes there is

    some conflicts with that in terms of how it best suits modalities and

    some issues with academic freedom.

         And so I'm really not sure what the college's policy is about

    this now and how selection of textbooks gets in with the faculty

    academic freedom.

         >> KEN SCOTT:  Sure.  I know exactly what you're talking about.

    That was a big concern for me, as well.

         >> Thank you.

         >> KEN SCOTT:  So there is actually a different policy, I don't

    know what policy it is, but there is a different policy that dealt

    with trying to find the most affordable stuff, but essentially the

    way that the academic freedom comes down on this topic is that more

    or less if you want to think about it this way, the department has

    the academic freedom to pick what they want, so like in my area,

    like, all of our accounting 212 classes we all use the same book.  So





    as an individual instructor, I do not have the academic freedom

    because as a department we have already agreed that that's what we

    are all going to do.  We're all going to be on the same page.

         As a department in other areas, like the writing area, like if

    you're doing poetry, it should be agreed that you are going to do

    poetry and not try to teach chemistry, but then as a department you'd

    say as individual instructors you would get to pick which poetry

    books you want to use but you do have to teach poetry.

         Does that make sense?

         >> Yeah, that's helpful.  One thing we have in biology is some

    circumstances where we have for certain modalities, certain books get

    much better than others, and we have more than one modality and we

    want to serve our students best within each modality.  And in

    addition, too -- and now the issue with textbooks is so back in the

    clunker (phonetic) days when you had these 250, $300 textbooks, which

    we are away from that, we are so far away from that now, especially

    with the pandemic, where now we're looking at being able to use a

    book for a semester, and the book is digital, and it costs between 40

    to $75 a semester.

         So that's quite affordable now.  And so if we are being asked to

    all go with the same textbook for a different course, it doesn't

    really make sense now as it did before.

         And I don't even know if that really applies to, you know, which

    college policy, but it seems like it applies someplace.

         >> KEN SCOTT:  So in general the college would like us to use





    consistent textbooks between courses so that if a student leaves one

    course and goes to another they don't have to buy another set of

    books, so as much as we can, we try to be consistent, but that just

    doesn't work in all areas.

         Like it doesn't work in your area, and it wouldn't work with a

    writing class, because what one teacher would like to talk about in

    their class may not be the same books that a different one would like

    to.

         But in those cases students can get those books for free by going

    down to the library.  They can --

         >> With all of our publishers, like 14 days is free.  Let's say

    you started off in one course, right, and their work totally changes

    right at the beginning of the semester.  We see this happen with our

    students all the time, right?  So they can take up with another

    course without any cost.  They wouldn't have to pay for both rentals

    as long as it's within say the first 14 days or so.

         And the publisher really bend over backwards for students and

    cases that can be documented.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Lisa, thank you so much for your comment.  I

    just have to break in because we are over time and we have a very

    loaded agenda --

         >> Thank you.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  We're getting away from the actual policy

    here, and I don't mean to interrupt, but I just, I wanted to make

    sure that we focus on this item and what you're talking about is





    completely important.  If it needs to be a discussion that we take up

    separately, let's find a way to do that.

         But I just want to keep to this item for now and move forward.

    If you do have any comments related to this item, please do fill out

    the feedback form.

         >> KEN SCOTT:  Thank you.  Questions?  Then I'm done.  Thank you

    very much.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  All right.  Thank you, and the question that

    Lisa brings up is of course an important one.  We have all discussed

    it in our areas, and, you know, if it comes to a point where we'd

    like to discuss this as a Faculty Senate, I'm all for it.

         So contact me after the meeting or at some other time and we can

    develop a plan.

         So the chancellor is here, and so I know that the chancellor has

    a limited amount of time.  So at this point, I'm going to turn it

    over to the chancellor who has some remarks for us.  Chancellor

    Lambert?

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  How are you, Josie?  Hi, everybody.  Thank

    you for giving me a few minutes of your time this afternoon.

         First and foremost, I want to thank each and every one of you for

    the work you have done throughout this incredible year.  I mean, it

    has been nothing like any of us have ever experienced in our life

    times, and hopefully we don't go through this again in our current

    life times.

         I thought I'd just reflect briefly on that for a moment.  When





    you think about when we were getting signals about COVID-19 as we

    were moving through the first part of this year, and then all of a

    sudden it became very clear to the college, and so I had directed the

    team that we're going to have to move quickly and pivot to a new

    reality.

         So we were in the forefront of shifting from our primarily

    face-to-face operation into a virtual operation.

         The fact that all of you quickly embraced that, did the heavy

    lifting to move nearly 2,000 courses into the virtual environment and

    then invested in your professional development to be able to utilize

    the tools to go into that environment, I mean, that's just

    phenomenal.

         So thank you for that.  I mean, the focus on our students and

    their learning became the highest priority alongside of the health

    and safety of everybody.

         And at the time, you know, reflect back, some people thought we

    were overreacting, that we were being a little too conservative.

         I think if you now look back probably more organizations should

    have responded like Pima did.  So I think that says a lot about us as

    an organization that when the time comes, we can all pull together

    and really focus on what matters most.  That's our health, safety,

    and the success of our students.

         So thank you, thank you, thank you.

         So in terms of biggest challenges going forward, and I'll frame

    it in this one piece, but there are many components to it, and it's





    enrollment.  Community colleges ever since the great recession, as a

    whole, have been losing enrollment for just about every year since

    the height of the great recession.

         And Pima, you know, has unfortunately been part of that.  At the

    front end of it, we lost more enrollment than some of the other

    institutions, but over time ours started to even out more like the

    other institutions.

         Then as we were starting to see signs of stabilizing on the

    enrollment then COVID hits.  We have been hit really hard by the

    reality of the pandemic, and it's not just us.  Many of our colleges

    in the State of Arizona have been hit very significantly.

         Probably I think it's Eastern was probably hit the hardest,

    probably 30% enrollment loss.

         I just don't see that improving as we go into the spring.  And if

    you think about the reasons why, I think they underlie the reasons

    why we have lost so much enrollment coming into the fall.  Access to

    the digital tools that learners need is still a problem and hasn't

    been solved and it can't be solved by Pima alone.

         This is larger than us.  The community, the businesses, the state

    and local governments all have to pull in to create the

    infrastructure to solve the digital divide.  We can do little pieces,

    but it's not going to make the kind of dent.

         And lots of people have lost their jobs.  We have over 175,000

    individuals in Tucson who are considered low wage earners.  That's

    almost half of the workforce as defined by Brookings for our region.





    Their definition probably doesn't line up with the actual reality of

    the number of jobs, but I think you get the idea.

         And many of those 175,000 are people of color.  So they are stuck

    in these low wage jobs, and many of those jobs have been displaced

    because of the pandemic.

         So what we're seeing is what's happening to work, and this is why

    I say it's not as simple as let's go out and market more, try to do

    more, because work is being fragmented, disaggregated, work is being

    just completely disrupted, and it's becoming such that now that

    fragmentation is leading to workers having to essentially fend for

    themselves, and they are going to other platforms, to APIs, to stitch

    together work.

         So the rise of DoorDash, we saw the rise of Uber, these are all

    things picking up now and more and more workers across the country,

    over 36% are what they would classify as gig workers.

         Each and every day they are having to create their own job.  Each

    and every day they have to create their own schedule.  So if they are

    doing each and every day, guess what they are probably not going to

    be looking to do?  Coming to school or coming to an educational

    provider unless we can show to those learners the value of coming to

    us.

         But they won't have time to come at certain times when we want

    them to come.  We've got to deliver when they have time to.

         So I think the relevancy, the focus on skills, the focus on short

    term are going to become increasingly important if we want to address





    this larger challenge facing us around enrollment.

         And there is more pieces, but I don't have time to get into that.

    And so but let's step back for a moment.  I think the other thing we

    are starting to see is more personalization, more customization, the

    need to engage our learners more, to be more collaborative.

         As we start to think about that type of approach, I think

    contract grading starts to lend itself to more of that

    personalization.  It really starts to lend itself to us really

    addressing the equity issues, and I'm not saying you replace what we

    do with contract grading.  I'm saying how do we integrate contract

    grading into the overall offerings of Pima?

         Some things that I think are very special about contract grading

    is a student has to be more engaged in their learning in order to set

    up the contract.  It requires them to negotiate with you as faculty

    around the kinds of skills and the focus on the type of learning

    goals that are going to be necessary for them to be successful.

         Many times it can be completely aligned to the courses that is

    already being offered.  So I think these are some of the things we

    have to keep in mind.  So I sat down with Brooke Anderson, Dolores,

    Kate and I, and we had a discussion about how we can move forward

    with contract grading.

         So Brooke is going to put together a one- to two-page proposal

    that we will review.  Likely we will probably move forward with some

    type of pilot.

         It's not that Pima hasn't been doing some things, but we are





    really looking at how do you institutionalize contract grading?

    Again, not to replace but to be just one part of how we engage our

    learners and really be sensitive to not every learner learns in the

    same way.

         And I think this really helps to address the equity challenges

    that we face.

         In terms of, as we do all this, it's really leading up to

    building a shared culture.  I mean, I don't think we could be

    enjoying the successes that Pima has been enjoying and we have

    enjoyed a lot of successes over the last few years, without the fact

    that we have been building a shared vision which translates into a

    shared culture.

         And as we do that, the focus around imagination, the focus around

    inquiry, are going to become more important.  And we translate that

    imagination, that inquiry, into innovations.

         And being entrepreneurial, not being afraid to take risks.  Of

    course we have to do that all within the context.  We have to keep in

    mind we have to do things that are consistent with the Higher

    Learning Commission.  We have to remember that many of our transfer

    students are going to go on to the U of A, ASU, NAU, and so they have

    to recognize what the learners have been doing on our side.  So we

    can't get so far astray from what our three public universities,

    especially the U of A, who is our largest feeder school, right?  So I

    think it's within a framework that we really continue to push this

    imagination and a sense of inquiry.





         I really like that way of thinking.  The 21st Century is going to

    require more of that, constant reinvention.  Like I said earlier,

    many of our learners are having to remake themselves each and every

    day just to survive.

         So in many ways, as a college, we're going to have to remake

    ourselves too to be in response to their changing needs.

         So we have to figure out how we manage that.  I will share -- so

    I was in a conversation earlier.  As you all know, Pima is the only

    community college in dialogue with a group of liberal arts colleges.

    This is part of the work that MIT through their J-WEL network has

    been leading.

         Lehigh University was sharing some of the work they have been

    doing to make liberal arts relevant in terms of work.  They are

    talking about, they haven't done this, so don't -- things are always

    evolving.  They are talking about, you know, why do we even have

    majors?  They are saying maybe the structure should be around the

    skills that students are going to need when they go out into the

    workplace, and then you organize around those skills.  Critical

    thinking, cultural fluency, teamwork and collaboration, and your

    curriculum is lined up to support students getting those skills.

    Then you validate those skills, and then it's captured in a block

    chain.

         So they actually demoed what I'm talking about to us, Lehigh did,

    and so it's very interesting what some of our liberal arts

    institutions are doing to make themselves relevant because they





    realize the world has shifted, and if they want to stay relevant they

    have to shift too.

         I will stop there.  I know I said a lot.  Be glad to answer maybe

    one or two questions.

         Maybe, Brooke, could you just say a few words about our

    discussion?  Unless you have it as an agenda item and you want to

    wait.

         >> BROOKE ANDERSON:  Yeah, thank you, Lee.  Yeah, I'm going to

    wait, but again, thank you so much for sharing your perspective on

    the kinds of innovative assessment practices faculty can adopt.

         I will be presenting on this a little bit later today to help

    familiarize faculty with contract grading more and then to continue

    the work moving forward to think about ways we can change our culture

    and institutionalize these more innovative assessment practices.

         Thank you so much for your insights, Lee.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  You're welcome.  Thank you.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  So I'm sure there must be at least one other

    question for the chancellor out there, so if you have a question,

    please go ahead and unmute.  Just go ahead and speak up.

         I see Sarah has a question.  Sarah, please go ahead.

         >> Thanks, Chancellor Lambert.  I, in my own teaching, I have

    seen a lot of students who actually weren't gig workers are becoming

    gig workers during this time and are having challenges with the

    synchronous meeting.

         I'm curious, has the college taken steps to offer a lot more





    online classes?  Because it looks like we have maybe the same amount,

    but I'm just looking at my own discipline.  Is there going to be a

    move toward more of that so we can offer that?

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  So let me put this into context and have

    Dolores or Lamata to maybe follow up on the particulars.

         I said this to a group earlier talking with the adjunct faculty.

    I think if we look at things on a spectrum, on the one hand is fully

    online.  And then on the other hand is fully face-to-face.  Then as

    we move towards the middle is that hybrid, Hyflex, will be a growing

    part of that, you know, scale, if you will.

         So if we start thinking that way and thinking about the online

    piece, moving away from the virtual piece, 50% in that type of might

    be the right line -- and how did I pick 50%?  That's simply because

    of the HLC requirement.  We can't cross 50% at Pima.

         Now, if you look at it from a learner's perspective, unless we go

    through a whole change process -- I mean, we can do, certainly change

    if we wanted to.  I don't know that that's the wisest thing to do,

    but just know we can't cross that 50% threshold without causing other

    issues around accreditation.

         So with that said, some of it is the learners themselves, right?

    If more and more learners are going to gravitate into an online

    world, and in order for us to be competitive, that may force us to go

    way beyond the 50%, but I don't know that we are there.

         I think if we offer a high-quality hybrid model, I think that's

    going to help to start to impact that trajectory.





         Now, keep in mind, over the course of the pandemic, Coursera,

    remember that MOOC, edX, remember those MOOCs?  Coursera has grown

    over 600%.  EdX has grown over 400%.  Think of the market share that

    ASU Global is starting to gain.  Think about Southern New Hampshire.

    Think about Grand Canyon.  Those folks are becoming more of mega

    universities.  That's impacting us.  We can't deny that that's

    impacting us.  I think we have to weigh all that into the mix.

         So Dolores or Lamata, do you want to add to that?

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  Surely.  Michael Amick just put

    something in the chat that I think we should look at.  So online

    asynchronous offerings have increased by 30% this fall with a 39%

    increase in enrollment.

         So we can see where the shift is taking place.  I think, just as

    the chancellor said, and we also need to look at what is needed

    within our local community, and that means we have to offer more

    options and be flexible.

         So a lot of our students are essential workers, and I think I

    have mentioned this before at senate, and they are students of color,

    people of color mostly, and so they are looking at where, they are

    working, and trying to make a decision, do I continue with my studies

    or do I provide for my family and choose work?

         So that means we have to adjust our scheduling.  And modalities.

    Scheduling, offering more evening classes, weekend classes, and we

    can adapt to their own schedule.

         So now it's becoming, as I said before, we want to be ready for





    the students coming in, not that the students be ready for college

    but the college be ready for the students that we have.  And be

    grateful for the students that we have, not wish that the students we

    used to have or want to have, but embrace the students that we

    currently have.

         And that also takes looking at the different modalities.  So the

    chancellor mentioned about looking at Hyflex, at looking at hybrid,

    at different options, again, being flexible and focusing on what the

    students need and want.

         Lamata?  Do you want to add anything more on that?

         >> DR. MITCHELL:  Yes, as the chancellor and provost have

    reiterated, we have to look at the quality.  The quality that the

    students are interested in that will attract the students.

         We also need to look at what resources do we need to ramp up to

    make sure that the students complete, that we retain the students and

    that they complete successfully, because some students have been very

    clear to us, I do not learn well with online, I like the synchronous

    option because I know someone is there that's going to answer my

    questions.  We noted at the beginning of the semester the chancellor

    worked extremely hard with different units to make sure that the

    students we serve who lived in areas where they didn't have access to

    Internet or did not have a device received those things that they

    needed to be successful.

         So there is a lot of components that we have to think about.  We

    really need to focus on the demographics that we serve and how do we





    make sure that we retain them and move them through to completion and

    beyond that.

         So could we increase PimaOnline?  I think we could.  But then

    we'd also need to ask ourselves, what resources are needed for

    student success and what resources are needed for faculty success,

    for training in order to do this exceptionally well.

         So I think the niche that we fit here at Pima is a flexibility

    and understanding the students that we serve and meeting them where

    they are, not assuming that if we change something, then, you know,

    that's going to meet their needs.

         So it's also important to hear from the students, what are the

    challenges that they are encountering, what would they like to see us

    put in place, that would help us increase our retention and

    completion numbers.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  And I think building off of that a little

    bit, one of the things that came through in the Lehigh presentation

    today was this notion of thinking of their university as a platform,

    and then as a platform, they want learners to constantly be coming to

    them, moving out and coming back, so thinking of themselves as that

    anchor for a person's lifetime of learning.

         That's an important piece, right?  I'm not just coming to you to

    get the degree, not just coming to you to get the certificate.  I'm

    coming to you for a lifetime of learning, because you could help me

    meet the ever-evolving needs that I have as a learner over my

    lifetime.





         So also another important thing, you can Google this, there is

    this evolving conversation around the 60-year curriculum.  It goes

    back to kind of what I was mentioning in terms of Lehigh and really

    the focus of moving around to lifelong learning.  A degree is a part

    of.  It's not about the degree.  It's about lifelong learning and

    degree is a component of that.

         If we start thinking in that way, we want every learner in this

    community to know that they can come back to Pima, in and out of

    Pima, as they need to refine and sharpen their skill needs over time.

         And so if we start to think that way, we may be able to be more

    flexible to be able to do that and moorage I will to be able to do

    that.

         It also will allow us to define our place in this community

    differently than ASU Online, differently than Grand Canyon, because

    those folks are going to keep coming at us.

         And then we are competing with the world of work, too.  And as

    more of these gig workers grow, we've got to make it easy for them to

    come and get what they need so they can continue to do that.  It's a

    shame that work is becoming that way.  I mean, that's a whole other

    issue that's well beyond Pima, right?

         That's not a positive thing for our society that work is going

    away and people are having to create their own work to remain stable

    and vibrant in a community.

         But that also opens up potential for new curriculum and new

    offerings for us if we think about that, because we have got to help





    people think about those kinds of workers need a way to organize.

    They need to have a way to have someone advocating for them to have

    new work rights, new work rules.  How would they even know to do that

    unless someone helps them to put together a curriculum that pulls

    that together.

         I think the world is evolving and it's exciting but it's also

    going to be chaotic.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Thank you so much, Chancellor, for your visit

    here today.  We so appreciate your time.

         I know we see you several times and are planning to visit you or

    that you're planning to visit us February 4 for Faculty Senate.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  Happy Holidays, everybody.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  Okay.

    Moving right along, if you look at our agenda, you will see there are

    quite a few policy reviews, and we are already past our time.

         The issue here is that we got these rather late, and they are

    also very important items for us, like crucial items.

         So what we did was we stacked the ones that are most relevant to

    Faculty Senate at the top, those first four, and the complaint

    procedure and grants we put at the bottom, because we thought that

    the most discussion would probably concern those first four.

         What a few of us did, I heard from several faculty who are

    concerned about and have questions and have comments about some of

    these items, we're not going to have time today to give these

    policies the discussion they merit, unfortunately.  They do merit at





    least two hours just looking through them, and especially the new

    SOP.

         So what we did was we created this document here.  I have just

    combined all the comments that I have received.  What we will do is

    we will all, I will submit these through public comment to make sure

    these comments are heard.

         You can see there are quite a few comments here.  I wanted to

    note one other thing is that Tal and I are listed as contributors on

    the AP 1.01.03, and Rita is, as well.  Actually, just so you know

    what that consisted of, we had, over a year and a half ago, an

    initial meeting in April of 2019 to kind of discuss an overview of

    what this policy would need.

         There was one other meeting that was on graduation day of 2019.

    I had to be at rehearsal, so I wasn't able to attend.

         But as far as our contributions, we never saw anything in writing

    since then.  I just wanted to make that clear that we didn't

    participate in the drafting of this.  We just were there when it was

    initially discussed what the policy would do.

         I need to bump the item AP 3.25.05 to the top, because the group

    who is here, Wendy, Steven, and Bruce, have to leave very shortly.

         So if you would like to speak to these items, Wendy, Steven, or

    Dr. Moses, please go ahead, or you can just take questions, because I

    believe people have had a chance to read through them.

         >> DR. BRUCE MOSES:  We'll just take the questions.  Can you hear

    us?





         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  We can hear you just fine.  Thank you.  Thank

    you for being here.

         >> DR. BRUCE MOSES:  We will just take the questions.  Wendy has

    to go and do interviews here in a little bit, so --

         >> Steven and Bruce will remain.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  It's nice to see the District Office is still

    there.  (Laughter.)

         >> Thank you.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  I can go through the comments that we have

    included on our document.  I don't know what would be easier, if we

    also sent them to you through e-mail or just submitted them public

    comment, but those comments are -- what was removed was clear steps

    to be taken in the program review process.  The changes added do not

    provide a well-defined process.  (Reading)...data provided may

    include as appropriate or other aspects may include...

         If I go through all of these it's going to take quite a bit of

    time, but on the agenda, if you have our agenda up, you should be

    able to link to them as well.  I'll put a draft of it or a link to it

    in the chat so that you can access it.

         But basically the overall concern that I picked up from most who

    have commented is that the policy removes a lot of the accountability

    in specific areas, areas of specificity into the SOP, so there is a

    concern about how that fuzziness is going to impact our standard and

    formal process of program review.

         We could end up discussing that for tons and tons of time.  But





    we really have to keep it kind of brief.  So I'll just open it up

    from there.

         >> DR. BRUCE MOSES:  I can address the first two bullet points.

    First of all, we have a well-documented, systematic process of

    program review that's articulated and it's also built into our eLumen

    system that the faculty and the deans work their way through

    basically in kind of a work flow style.

         So the need to have that in the AP is not necessary, because it's

    documented and it's shared through documentation from the initial

    kickoff of program review when the different programs of going

    through program review each year, they receive this information right

    up front.  It's very articulated, clear, we even have it documented

    in a process map.

         So we felt that, in the AP, when we looked at where we were

    trying to go with APs, like Seth was talking about earlier, we didn't

    see a need to have that in the AP.  We didn't need to explain the

    steps in the AP, because all of that is provided initially to the

    departments up front.

         Also, I wanted to point out as well too that one of the reasons

    that was done is one of the things you see it was, a lot of stuff

    that was taken out of there, so program review was intermingled with

    service review.

         STAR does service review now, so a lot of the language you see

    struck out of there was language that was pertaining to service

    review and not program review.





         So we had to detangle those two.  And Nic is working on an AP for

    service review to bring forth as well.

         I just looked at the first couple bullets, I didn't get a chance

    to see the other ones, but that's the reason why you see things are

    stripped out.  And the process is clearly articulated.  We'll be

    happy to share all those links and documentation and the process map

    to that, to that process with the senate leadership.

         It is also, Steven has it I think on his web page, as well.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  That would be great.  Thank you for the

    context.  That definitely helps us have a better understanding.

         Are there any other questions that anyone would like to put

    forward at this time?

         >> TAL SUTTON:  Yeah.  I think I might just be what Matej put in

    chat.  I guess I'm thinking about policies are sort of the foundation

    of the college, and I see sort of SOPs as like the straw and wood

    houses in the Three Little Pigs story, where APs and BPs are the

    brick houses that are meant to be sort of standing regardless of who

    might come and be executing those procedures.

         So it's great that things are well documented in those program

    review handbooks that you use, but as Matej pointed out, those are

    SOPs that can be adjusted if whoever is running those changes,

    whereas APs provide the outside stakeholders, the outside affected

    units, an ability to sort of monitor how that review process is to be

    conducted.

         And so having words like, having an administrative policy say





    this process "may" include these things isn't particularly helpful to

    somebody from a different unit that is affected by that AP.

         And so I guess in terms of establishing a better foundation for a

    process that affects across different units, I think it's important

    that it's not just housed in the SOP of the sponsoring unit but in an

    actual policy like an AP.

         >> Part of the reason for that language is that not every metric

    applies to every discipline or every program, and so we wanted to

    leave it open enough to where maybe we don't use every metric, like

    you wouldn't, for instance, use a retention metric when you're

    measuring a certificate program that only is supposed to last a year.

    You wouldn't particularly have retention on a program like that.

         What we are looking to do kind of in the spirit of this is to

    update our metrics from the idea that, okay, there is a set number of

    enrollments, persistence, retention, completion that we would expect

    for every program every single year and moving that to more of a

    dynamic system where we would look at a program of a similar nature

    at a similar college and to see how many, what kind of results they

    are producing.

         It would be like asking if we tried to use the same measurement

    for a very tiny program as opposed to very large program, that may

    not be very meaningful, so our purpose is to make it more meaningful

    that way.

         >> TAL SUTTON:  I understand, and that sounds like it should

    exist in the SOP just fine.  But I'm more thinking about the AP is





    the mechanism is the wording and how units across the college

    interact with one another.

         So if the AP could maintain -- because some of the things that

    were crossed out were sort of a clear indication of how the review

    process is initiated and how it is concluded.  I think those things

    are probably pretty universal regardless of what program you happen

    to be reviewing.

         And I think maintaining that type of language lets the unit whom

    you are currently reviewing have a clear idea that, yes, I understand

    it exists in the SOP right now, but I'm just again reiterating in

    terms of the fact that SOPs are meant to be more dynamic and more

    subject to change, I feel it is important to have a more established

    place to have that very clear and articulate language.

         >> DR. BRUCE MOSES:  Well, I think one of the points that Seth

    made earlier was about things that are in certain policies has been

    challenging to change and the process was onerous and took too much

    time.

         I would argue that the program review process is one that changes

    and evolves based on several factors that don't even pertain

    internally to the college.  Like, for instance, one of the changes we

    made in pulling things out of this AP is because our accreditor has

    recently changed language in regards to the program review process

    that's in the accreditation language that says we must act upon the

    findings in a program review.

         So if you take that those words, "act upon the findings," and





    when you say, okay, well, what were our findings from multiple

    programs that went through program review, okay, our previous AP

    didn't say anything about us acting upon anything.  And to be very,

    you know, clear, basically to be very honest, we haven't been acting

    upon findings from program review in the four, five years that the

    office has done it and this process, systematic way we have been

    doing it for the last four or five years.

         So another area I could look at too as well is with some of

    our -- I will take our health profession programs.  If you take some

    of the criteria that was in our, previously written into our AP, it

    basically eliminated our health profession programs from even

    participating in the process, because we had indicators in there that

    were so outdated that if we were going by those indicators, none of

    our programs and our health profession programs would be accredited.

    The alignment with those criteria indicators have been misaligned for

    years.

         So I think that the AP, having language in the AP that's so

    highly structured that it can't be changed and adapted to in a quick

    manner, I think it handcuffs the institution.

         Again, these processes are clearly documented.  We don't change

    program review processes on a yearly basis.  That's not something

    -- this is the first time that we have made a change, and I have been

    overseeing program review since I have been at the college and it

    will be six years in February.  This is the first change we've made

    to program review.





         This is not something that happens on a yearly basis, and it

    shouldn't happen on a yearly basis, because it's a highly structured

    process.  Programs are supposed to go through review once every four

    years.  If you're constantly changing the process, there is no

    systematic way to collect longitudinal data about how effective

    college academic programs are.

         And the other thing I think we have to look at too is program

    review is supposed to inform budget and allocations of budget, and so

    there are things and indicators in here that are helping faculty and

    deans identify areas where they can put in budget requests, capital

    budget requests, you know, materials, equipment, those types of

    things.  Again, changing it on an ongoing basis does not lend itself

    to that process very well.

         I would be happy to talk about this a little bit more in regards

    to, because I don't want to take up too much time because Josie said

    we have limited time, but I just feel like we have well-documented

    information here in the AP, in the SOP, and the actually structured

    program review process, and we will be more than happy to sit down

    and have more conversation about that.

         But there is no intention of changing this stuff on a

    year-to-year basis.  You know, we worked really hard to get to this

    point with a lot of faculty input, as well.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Thank you very much, and, you know, I don't

    want to shorten the time for the other agenda items, and a lot of

    what we are discussing relates to the SOP item.





         So if you can stay and just kind of listen to our discussion of

    that, that might help too to add some context.  We would just ask

    that obviously there is a fundamental disagreement about how specific

    the policy should be, and there is some concern about what we lose

    when we bring those specific elements out of it.

         So I'm hoping there is some kind of way that we can kind of each

    be aware of each other's perspectives and find a way to bring it

    together in a way that can make everybody feel confident and

    comfortable about the policy.  That would be great.

         So, you know, taking our points seriously will be very much

    appreciated.  So thank you for being here, and thank you for

    presenting on the item.

         >> DR. BRUCE MOSES:  Thank you.

         >> NANCY HAMADOU:  I have a question.  Nancy Hamadou.

         I guess I'm concerned about the definition of program.  ESL, and

    I know there are other courses that do not fit into the definition of

    program there.

         So if that's leaving us out of the program review process, how do

    we do budget, capital requests and that type of thing?  How are we

    supposed to improve our not programs but our sequence of courses?

         >> DR. BRUCE MOSES:  Nancy, that's a good point.  I will tell you

    like this.  I don't have an answer to that.

         Because the definition of program, you know, defining a program,

    as you know, if we define ESL as a program, there is very highly

    political implications for that.  And that decision-making is out of





    my wheelhouse.  You and I have had these conversations in the past.

         I think that's a conversation that we definitely need to revisit

    with the provost and others in the institution, but you are correct.

    It does kind of push you guys outside of this process, you're

    correct.

         And that's not our intention.  It's just the way that the

    structure, how ESL is looked at and all that, and not being able to

    be an accredited program at the college.  That does push you outside

    of the realms of program review.

         >> NANCY HAMADOU:  So is there a way...

         >> DR. BRUCE MOSES:  That should not exclude you from budgetary

    requests and those types of things.

         >> NANCY HAMADOU:  Is there a way to include some kind of wording

    that we could be included in the review process?

         >> DR. BRUCE MOSES:  The program review process?  Yeah, I mean, I

    don't have an issue with you guys, even though you're not deemed

    necessarily a program, I mean, I don't see issues with you guys going

    through the program review process at all, no.

         I just think for the definition for our accreditor, you guys just

    don't need that, that's all.  That's what we're saying here.  You

    don't need it for that purpose.  But it doesn't mean you should be

    excluded from being able to go through a program review process.

         >> We also have a course review process that may be able to help,

    although budgeting is not directing tied to course review at the

    moment, but that may be a mechanism for the future to where we could





    look at it where you could use an instrument that was made

    specifically for courses as opposed to program review for something

    that's not necessarily a program.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  I think Nancy brings up a really good point.

    Nancy, would you please write that in the document?  And perhaps

    maybe you could meet with Steven and Wendy and Dr. Moses and try to

    get that addressed?  Because I think that would be helpful to have

    that documented, you know.

         >> Thanks, Josie.  Thank you.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Let's shift our attention to AP 1.01s.  Let's

    discuss them all together.  The representative for all three is Seth

    Shippee.  The most comments we received were for .02 and .03.  I'm

    just going to open it up from there.  You all have access to these

    comments, and I will thank Seth for being here.

         Seth, you are here, correct?

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  Hi, yes, I am.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Thank you for being here.  I know there are

    lots of questions, and so if you don't mind, can we just go ahead to

    the questions, or is there any context you'd like to provide

    regarding these items?

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  No, I'm happy to just jump in and take

    questions.  These are all really, as Josie said, three things that

    have to deal with basically the same thing, they are all policies

    about policies.

         As Josie said at the outset, this, at least with .03, it's been





    around a while, but I can just briefly address why the delay on that

    is we do have three, we are trying to organize, tried to organize

    three intersecting APs that all have to do with each other.  They all

    cross-reference each other.

         So in terms of coordinating, getting them all out at the same

    time, that took a little doing.  And also, we've got this little

    thing called COVID-19 which caused a few administrative setbacks, but

    it has not substantively changed since last year.  It's just been

    tabled.

         And last year was, again I'd like to knowledge and thank the

    contributions those on the stakeholders committee and the

    contributors to the shared Google drafts, Google Doc we all drafted

    or worked on together, including Josie and Tal and Rita and for their

    comments and suggested revisions on that.

         With that, I'm happy to take any questions that you might have,

    or if anybody wants more, like a broad clarification of what we're

    going for here, I'm happy to give that too.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Thank you so much.  And just to be clear, as

    I noted earlier, Tal and I went to a meeting, and Tal went to two,

    but that was a year, over a year and a half ago, and so we haven't

    contributed to anything in writing or seen anything in writing since

    that point.  So I just wanted that to be clear.

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  If I may offer a further clarification,

    Josie, that sounds more menacing perhaps than it is.  There has not

    been any substantive work done by anybody other than myself in





    formatting, which isn't really even substantive, since that time.  So

    there hasn't been any additional work that's been done since that

    stakeholders group.

         As I said, this has just been tabled due to other things that

    have been going on and trying to coordinate with getting this and

    other AP development-related policies out all at the same time.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  No, I understand.  I totally understand the

    delay.  I just wanted to be clear.  In the meeting that I was able to

    attend, there was nothing written at that time.  So just to be clear

    about that.

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  Sure, I understand that, Josie, but I have

    reviewed the Google Docs since we have been speaking here today, and

    we all have may contributed, and that's all been shared with

    everybody and we have all made comments and contributions to that, as

    well.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Okay.  So I'd like to open it up for any

    questions or comments.

         >> TAL SUTTON:  I guess just one thing that I think I even

    vaguely remember bringing this up a year and a half ago, and it's

    sort of out of the purview of the actual document itself, though

    there is language in that document that is making me think of this is

    what steps have there been made, perhaps there is none, in terms of

    actually getting a better handle on organizing and compiling and

    archiving and storing the SOPs in such a way that Pima employees can

    more readily access the SOPs?





         Because now they kind of just live, I don't even know if somebody

    working in one particular unit would even call something they use

    every day as an SOP but it could very well be an SOP.  To them, it's

    the handbook or whatever.

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  Yeah.  Thanks.  I think that's what this is

    really about.  I think there is this perception now that SOPs exist

    officially at the college, and they really don't.  That's why we have

    this AP out here now is to put into practice, put into policy what

    has been in practice and to do that in a systematic and organized and

    consistent way.

         So as Tal mentioned, a lot of things a particular unit might

    refer to as a handbook, as an operations manual, those technically

    would be considered SOPs under this AP, and I think you may recall

    way back when I came to talk to senate about the student code of

    conduct and the academic integrity code, one of the things I

    mentioned apropos of those is applicable kind of across the college

    with handbooks and with codes of conducts and things too is this

    question of where does the authority come from by which these

    handbooks or codes are written?

         And the answer to that is there is always an AP or a BP to which

    they are linked, through which the authority to create those

    handbooks and codes and checklists and everything else comes.

         But the question then is, as Tal pointed out, how do we know what

    this is linked to and how do we know where that authority comes from?

    How are we, as end users or those affected by these SOPs, I'm using





    that in the future sense since as I say we don't really have SOPs

    just yet, but the codes and handbooks, how do we as those affected

    and those who use them know that it is consistent with the APs to

    which it is linked and that it's being applied in the spirit of them

    in accomplishing what they are supposed to do?

         Well, that's what this is set out to do and to address questions

    like that and others, which so if we have, again, to go back to the

    example of student code of conduct, we have an AP that says

    effectively to the provost, thou shalt create a student code of

    conduct, thou shalt create an academic integrity code, and it shall

    contain, and it has certain directives that must be included in that.

         And then it's incumbent upon the provost and her team to put that

    into practice with a written code.  So right now, as I said, the AP

    says go out and create this, but if you're just looking at the code

    of conduct or academic integrity code, you don't really see that.

    You don't see, oh, this is linked to AP, whatever that number is.

         So now what the SOP system is going to say is if you have an SOP

    like the student code of conduct, again, going with that example,

    that's going to be numbered just like the APs are numbered in

    accordance with the BPs that they fall under.

         So these APs we are talking about, AP 1.01.02 and 03 and 01,

    those are all under BP 1.01.  And so the SOP then, as this is

    written, as the SOP AP lays out, and procedurally, it will be SOP

    1.01.01-1, something like that, which sounds like a lot of numbers

    and it kind of is but at the same time you're at least looking at





    this handbook or code of conduct that has this specific SOP number on

    it and that SOP is linked to a specific AP.

         So I hope that answers your question, Tal.  It was long-winded,

    but it hits on a lot of the existential questions of why are we doing

    this and what are we trying to accomplish?

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Tal, would you like to respond?

         >> TAL SUTTON:  Thank you, Seth.  That definitely meshes with

    what I remember about this.

         I guess just -- and I think, mine might be more of an applied

    problem rather than the sort of theoretical thing that the AP is

    solving.

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  Tal, I'm sorry, but we just did have a chat

    comment pop up that reminded me what your actual, perhaps the

    gravamen of your actual question was, which is where can we find

    these.

         So this will be in practice, just like we have our APs and BPs

    published under the college's website where it says these are college

    policies and here they are, and we will have them there, as well.

         I don't control the college's website, so I'm kind of saying how

    I see this playing out.  But there is a directive that they will be

    published and that they will be published in effectively the same way

    as APs and BPs are.

         Just like now if you look at the BPs under those they have the

    APs in the tabs next to them, and I can't speak for the web masters

    and how they will lay these out, but that's the idea, there will be a





    tab for the SOPs just like there are for the APs and BPs.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  I think, Seth, how you're describing them,

    it's very logical.  It makes complete sense, especially when you

    think about we need language for this, but it doesn't belong here,

    but we need that specific language somewhere, and the concern is just

    as the Faculty Senate, as you know, we participate in the review

    process.

         So when some of these things are removed from the review process,

    they become a little bit less formalized.  So that's the larger

    concern.

         We're not going to -- it's a philosophical thing.  We're not

    going to be able to, and an accountability thing and all sorts of

    other things, and we're not going to be able to solve it today.

         That's the larger concern.  And again, it's one of those things

    like we talked about, you know, both perspectives make sense, as do

    concerns on both sides make sense.

         And so I don't have an answer to have all sides be satisfied with

    the outcome here, but the concerns are worth, you know, I would

    appreciate and I can tell you're considering our concerns, and I

    appreciate that, but that's the larger issue is we just don't want

    to, you know, change what does work really well about our policy

    review process and sort of, you know, truncate our official policies

    and put under them things that won't go through review.

         That's the overall concern.  We are unfortunately so short on

    time, and I know this discussion merits, like I said, two hours, but





    can we take an additional one to two comments on these items before

    we move forward?

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  Sure.  If I could just quickly respond to

    that, very briefly.  I'm happy, if you want to schedule a time, I

    can't -- once things are in motion, I can't really slow down the

    process, but I'm happy to come and speak to you more about this.  If

    you want to have a very special session with Seth Shippee, I'm happy

    to attend that.

         Secondly, I know it's been a while since we worked on and talked

    about it together, but these are issues that did come up from the

    beginning of talking about how we would structure an SOP AP and what

    it should include.

         This concern that things are going to be taken out that should

    remain in APs and they're going to be put in something that's more

    dynamic and fungible than evergreen, there isn't a whole lot, I could

    just say -- I like to consider myself fairly adroit drafter of

    policies, but there is only so much that one can do with paper and

    text.

         And there really isn't a feasible way to address all of those

    concerns in the text of an AP.  So based on those comments that we

    had before and those concerns, what's built into .03 about SOPs and

    .02 about APs and BPs themselves is a brand new section about

    submitting complaints, about just these questions, about whether or

    not something is an SOP or for that matter an AP is consistent with

    the policy that is above it, the SOP AP, or the BP.





         And previously there was not a set way, a set provision saying if

    you have concerns or if you have a complaint about how it's being

    implemented, that it's not appropriate for this level of policy, that

    wasn't something that if someone went to the policy itself and

    thought, well, how can I submit my concern about this, that they

    would find it there.

         Now it is specifically written into both of those APs, the new

    one about SOPs and the revised one about APs and BPs.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Yes, I value your suggestion and we will move

    forward on it.  Anyone who is interested in attending a policy

    meeting with Seth Shippee, please e-mail me and we can get into this

    conversation in more detail.

         Then once I hear from people, we will schedule it and I will let

    everyone know and anyone who wants to come can come.

         Hopefully before the end of fall, but there isn't much left to

    fall, so we will do the best we can.

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  Tal is being, I assume, being sarcastic,

    but I really think that these are, once you get in into very

    constructive conversations to have in more depth, and once we have

    opportunity to have a broader discussion about how this works, I

    think it's very informative for individuals at the college to

    understand how to avail themselves of the processes that are in place

    for bringing their suggestions about revising college policies and

    things like that to the fore.

         >> MATEJ BOGUSZAK:  Can I make a quick comment?  Sorry to hold





    this up.

         And thank you, Seth, for this organization.  I think it's really

    important that all these kinds of handbooks and documents that have

    been cropping up over the last few years get somehow organized.

         So thanks for that work.  Also, like the numbering and

    definitions you did in there, I wish we had that in the employee

    handbook, for example.  So something to work on.

         I am concerned, though, very much about this direction, right?

    I'd like everybody to understand over the last five years or so, we

    have been moving more and more of these crucial details from BPs,

    which have like the highest level of review and the board has to

    approve them and transparency and accountability, to APs, and now

    from APs there has been this big push to move things out of APs into

    these other kinds of documents.

         But now we are defining these documents as SOPs which can

    literally it says they can be changed unilaterally by whoever the

    area administrator is, right?

         So that is a big systemic change, and we are not going to be

    moving in that direction anymore of moving crucial details from APs

    into these SOPs if that is the, you know, sort of legal systemic

    framework we have.

         And so, yes, I would look forward to some more detailed

    discussion about this, and if there is any, you know, if you're open

    to or whoever is responsible to perhaps phrasing that 1.01.03 a

    little differently on the SOPs.





         My question was where does the employee handbook fit in here?

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  That would be an SOP, as well.  It would be

    something where we have an AP that establishes the chief human

    resources officer as being the -- Matej, you're shaking your head.

    You want to elaborate on your comment?  Was it really more of a

    rhetorical question and I should wait for you to complete the

    thought?

         >> MATEJ BOGUSZAK:  No, I mean, it was really a question.  It's

    neither an AP, it used to be a BP actually, and then we moved into

    this new thing called the employee handbook.

         There is absolutely no way, I'm so sorry, that this will be

    considered an SOP at least under this structure, because we have BP

    1.25, AP 1.25, and that's where the employee handbook is subject to

    the review by the AERC, which is the Meet and Confer process at the

    college.

         So again, I think we will need to have more conversation about

    this new kind of system.

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  Well, you may just have more knowledge than

    I do having been -- I wasn't involved in the drafting of the employee

    handbook.  It may fit in someplace else.  I was analogizing it to the

    student code of conduct and the academic integrity code, which on the

    student side of the house does fit under an AP, which as I said,

    directs the provost to create them.

         It may be different from the employee handbook and like I said, I

    just wasn't involved in that process, so I don't really know how it





    slots in there, but I would certainly be happy to educate myself

    before, if we do have a meeting in the future so I can talk about it

    more then.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  And adding to that, it would be nice to have

    an administrative presence to address some of these concerns, some of

    these areas too so it's not just on your shoulders, Seth.

         Perhaps we can organize it with some administrative input, as

    well.

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  We could do that.  I think that would be a

    different topic though.  It wouldn't really be about the SOP -- the

    question of where the employee handbook or other types of manuals and

    codes might fit I think is a different discussion than the SOP one,

    but --

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  What would be ideal is if we could find an

    answer to that before we have this meeting.  Is there an

    administrator here in this meeting who could perhaps address Matej's

    concern?  If so, be please go ahead and unmute.

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  So I wanted to say that there are

    some people here that could respond.  I personally was not involved

    in all of the meetings of the policies that were changed and the

    handbook.  I think that was more led by Ted Roush, and I don't know

    if he's on the line.

         Perhaps Kate was involved in it.  Kate?  Are you here?

         >> KATE SCHMIDT:  I'm here, but I understand the question, but

    I'm not sure I have an answer.  The questions we already have, we





    already have policy that governs any kind of changes that happen in

    the handbook, and Aubrey may be better able to answer this.

         AERC I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but AERC is officially in

    policy the group that would change any of those personnel policies,

    right?  So I think the question is this isn't really an SOP because

    it follows a different system.  It may be that it's just its own

    thing that has policy around it on how it gets updated.

         Matej, you're saying I have understood the question, but I don't

    quite have the answer.  It may just be a separate process that has

    its own governance process in terms of how changes are made to it.

         >> MATEJ BOGUSZAK:  Right, that would make sense to me.

         >> KATE SCHMIDT:  I'm not saying that would be the answer.  That

    would just be my guess.  Since we have policy already that's written

    on how that gets updated.

         What I'm hearing you say is that it would be, you and Tal and

    Josie say, is that it would be great if we had that kind of policy,

    that kind of procedure where it was clear who had input in updating

    other SOPs.

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  If I could offer a suggestion, like I said,

    I wasn't involved in the employee handbook process, I'm not familiar

    with how that fits in and what the requirements under the applicable

    AP would be, but if I could just suggest when senate submits its

    comments on the SOP AP, .03, one of them could be something along the

    lines of to include language in the SOP AP to say that the

    fungibility, the SOP being amenable to revision, it would be





    contingent upon any limitations on that contained in the applicable

    AP, something along those lines.

         So if we do have an AP that says you have to go through AERC or

    whatever, that might be, that that's reflected in the SOP, if that

    makes sense.  It would be to contain language that says that the

    ability of an SOP to be revised without additional comment or notice

    or whatever that might be would be dependent upon any limiting

    language in the AP to which it's linked, something like that.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  We need to cut this discussion -- I hate to

    do this, but I knew this was really going to take a long time.

    Aubrey looks like, he entered the meeting, I'm not sure if it was to

    offer input on this, but I did see Aubrey enter.

         Aubrey, did you enter because you heard that we were discussing

    the --

         >> KATE SCHMIDT:  Your ears were burning.

         >> AUBREY CONOVER:  And my phone was buzzing.  I apologize for

    coming in late.  I was working on a different project.

         What might I be able to talk to?

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Matej, would you like to go ahead and

    contextualize --

         >> MATEJ BOGUSZAK:  Sure.  I don't want to take up more time here

    either.  The question was where does the employee handbook fit in

    with this whole new SOP system?  My assumption is it wouldn't be an

    SOP.  That's more how to check out keys and student code of conduct,

    not terms and conditions of employment.





         >> AUBREY CONOVER:  Right.  That would be an answer.  We have

    tried to move things that are just procedural things out of the

    discussion.  It's always that question of we don't want to go too

    far, because we need to make sure that they are housed somewhere.

         But the general concept would be that, as Matej talked about,

    procedures about keys and stuff like that, would not fall under our

    purview.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Okay.  Thank you.  I'm going to executively

    move us forward.

         We have these two final APs, they didn't generate any feedback or

    comment.

         Thank you, Seth.  As always, thank you for being here.

    Appreciate your time.  Appreciate your help and feedback.

         We will schedule a meeting with you, and go from there.

         But we do have Ken H and Laurie here to address these policies.

    Thank you very much, Ken and Laurie, for being here.

         I would like to open it up to see if there are any questions, but

    I'm not aware of any at this point.

         If there are any questions, please go ahead, unmute yourself

    and... I'm going to take that as a no.  There are no questions.

         So, Ken and Laurie, thank you so much for taking the time to

    attend today.  Just having you here is valuable.  Thank you.

         We're going to move along, and we have Dr. Mitchell here to

    address cross-listing, and I believe all of you are aware of what

    this item relates to, it's come up several times, and at our last





    meeting Dr. Mitchell agreed to speak to the item in more detail

    today.

         Thank you, Dr. Mitchell, for being here.  Please come forward to

    the virtual podium.

         >> DR. MITCHELL:  All right.  Good afternoon, everyone.

         So I need to preface this by saying that I recently inherited

    this initiative and was led to believe that all of the conversations

    surrounding it had already taken place and that curriculum and I were

    dragging our feet in getting it implemented.

         After a discussion with Josie, I realize that the promised

    discussion has not taken place, so I think we need to step back and I

    would be interested in meeting with anyone who would like to discuss

    the pros and the cons of uncrossing the cross-listed courses that we

    have.

         So I have done a little bit of research and I saw there were some

    questions, one of the questions was how many do we have?  As of this

    semester, when I counted, I noticed that we had 91 courses that are

    cross-listed, and 66 of those are cross-listed with one other subject

    and 17 are cross-listed with two other subjects, and 8 of them are

    cross-listed with three other subjects.

         Some areas have already moved forward with asking the uncrossing

    of the courses that they have, and so we are in the process of doing

    that and working with the deans and with the areas that have made

    that request.

         So I'm going to open it up.  I may be able to answer your





    questions; I may not be able to answer your questions.

         But if anyone is interested in meeting with me to talk about this

    further, I would be happy to facilitate that meeting.

         >> MARGARITA YOUNGO:  Hello.  I'm interested in meeting with you.

         >> DR. MITCHELL:  Wonderful.

         >> MARGARITA YOUNGO:  Okay.

         >> DR. MITCHELL:  Great.

         >> MARGARITA YOUNGO:  So we just e-mail you?

         >> DR. MITCHELL:  Yes, please, and we will work around your

    calendar where we can set up that meeting.

         >> MARGARITA YOUNGO:  Wonderful.  Thank you.

         >> Good afternoon.  This is Marcos.  I would also love to

    schedule a meeting, so I will reach out in e-mail.  Is this something

    that has been already decided and is there a date where these

    cross-listings will just be forced to be cross-listed, or is this a

    process that is still pending?

         >> DR. MITCHELL:  It's the latter.  We need to step back and talk

    about it and really examine what's the purpose behind the crossing of

    the courses?  How does it serve students' needs?  What does it allow

    us as an institution to do in terms of meeting the needs of the

    demographics that we serve?

         So we're going to step back and engage in that conversation.

         >> Great.  I really appreciate you being so responsive and

    opening up your schedule to hear some of our feedback.  Thank you for

    that.





         >> DR. MITCHELL:  Of course.

         >> MARGARITA YOUNGO:  Josie, could you send out to the whole

    faculty, see who wants to be on that meeting?  They might not be here

    today.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Absolutely.  After today, I will send an

    e-mail to all of you today and put out both opportunities, for the

    Seth Shippee policy session and for Dr. Mitchell to discuss

    cross-listing.  I think that's probably the best step to move

    forward, and develop some kind of a group and go from there, because

    I appreciate, Dr. Mitchell, you taking this situation seriously and

    investigating and being open to further discussion.  So thank you for

    that.

         >> DR. MITCHELL:  Of course.

         >> ANTHONY SOVAK:  Point of clarification on this, only because

    it might be the last thing I do on senate, I remember the

    conversation very well and there were two things we stuck on and were

    supposed to have Julian and Jenny at the time come back, and COVID,

    right?  It went crazy.

         But the two points, one was, if I remember right, what problem

    were we trying to solve, and I think what we were trying to solve was

    a work issue, a workload issue from staff side, and that actually we

    were conflating terms with stacking and cross-listing.

         That's my recollection of how far we got.  We did have some

    conversation.  Obviously there were faculty very much invested in

    this process, but when we started to drill down to it we were talking





    maybe about different things.

         And so maybe just to get that clarity as a framework for that

    discussion so we don't, you know, lose the whatever 30 minutes we

    spent talking about it the last time.  Thanks.

         >> DR. MITCHELL:  Thanks.  So if you could send that to me,

    Anthony, that would be fine, and we will definitely have that

    included in the things that we discuss.  Since the discussion never

    really took place with faculty, I think that that's where we need to

    start.

         >> ANTHONY SOVAK:  Oh, for sure.  I don't know I have anything to

    send other than my recollection was, when Julian was talking about

    cross-listing and we were talking about cross-listing, we weren't

    actually talking about the same thing.

         >> DR. MITCHELL:  Okay.  That will help, because I haven't been

    able to find anything in the notes.  So thank you.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Okay.  Can we move forward?  We think we have

    a plan.  I think that was a pretty efficient -- anyone else?

         Thank you so much, Dr. Mitchell.  We look forward to continuing

    this conversation with you.

         All right.  Our next agenda item here is contract grading.  So we

    are fortunate to have Brooke Anderson as a member of our Faculty

    Senate being here.  Brooke has been a pioneer for contract grading

    for a very long time and has agreed to present to us today.

         >> BROOKE ANDERSON:  Hello, everyone.  Yes, thank you.

         I believe I'm sharing my screen now and you can see my





    PowerPoint; is that correct?

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  Yes, we can see it.

         >> BROOKE ANDERSON:  Thank you.  Thank you for having me today.

         Like Josie said, I'm here to share some information with faculty

    on contract grading.  It's something that I adopted over a decade ago

    as an assessment practice, and it has transformed my teaching in the

    most positive and powerful ways.

         And so I wanted to spend some time sharing some more information

    with the senate today.

         First thing I want to emphasize here is contract grading really

    is about adopting innovative assessment practices, and faculty really

    should be doing this, and I have three main reasons why.

         The first is that the research tells us it is absolutely

    necessary.  When we look at what has been found and we look at and

    study traditional assessment practices, we see that they actually

    hurt student motivation, they do not actually motivate students.

         They reinforce the status quo, and so if we want to be a social

    justice institution, working towards equity, and working to transform

    society in positive ways, then we really need to change our

    traditional assessment practices.

         Also, you know, the traditional assessment practices have been

    found to encourage cheating and plagiarism, and innovative assessment

    practices like contract grading, which is just one example, can

    really prevent that from even being an issue anymore.

         In addition, traditional assessment practices have been found to





    instill fear and resentment in students, and so they are just not

    good for faculty/student relationships.

         Second, our chancellor and our provost, as you can see in our

    communications to us, they really support innovation and imagination,

    and they want us to do this kind of powerful, powerful work.

         So we have the support of the college.  This is something that

    the college has invested in.

         And then finally, and most importantly, this is our purview.  If

    you look at the BP and the AP about grading, yes, we are an

    institution that uses that traditional grade scale, right?  Which I

    mean A through F is the traditional grade scale.

         But we faculty, in our departments, determine our learning

    outcomes, and we, faculty, as individuals, as indicated on our

    syllabus template, decide how we determine what constitutes an A in

    our class, what constitutes a B, a C, a D, and so we all are

    empowered to do this work.

         So what is contract grading?  I want to make sure to spend a

    little time defining this for us, and helping you understand it.  One

    thing to understand is that it is not one thing across the board.

    There is lots of different ways to do contract grading.

         And so one thing to know is that this is not, while it is

    innovative for a lot of faculty and new for a lot of faculty, it

    actually is a very established and tested assessment practice.  In

    our discipline, writing, this has been happening for over three

    decades.  There have been faculty using contract grading for 30-plus





    years.

         In other disciplines, contract grading is happening but it may be

    called something different or look a little different, so it isn't

    just about English faculty, although it really works well in

    disciplines that use formal writing assignments, like essays to

    assess student learning.

         And so it translates really nicely into disciplines that do that.

    It is a student-centered approach.  What that means is that students

    play an active role in determining their grades.

         And so Chancellor Lambert talked to that a little bit today with

    his experience with contract grading.  Students play an active role

    in determining the grade that they earn, and it really clarifies for

    them how they earn the grade in your class.

         It's used at a variety of institutions by a variety of faculty.

    So the chancellor has shared with us that at Evergreen, a liberal

    arts school, right, his experience as a student there was a contract

    grading experience.  He has also shared that he, as a faculty member,

    has also used contract grading.

         Research universities like the UC Santa Cruz in California uses a

    form of contract grading that is more of a narrative form.  So those

    two examples of institutions are examples that are institution-wide

    in which the whole system uses a different kind of assessment than

    that traditional A through F system.

         However, other institutions, like ASU and the U of A also use

    contract grading within that traditional A through F structured





    system.  So the key with contract grading and innovative assessment

    practices, are that there is a wide variety of ways to do it and they

    are very adaptable and flexible for faculty to use that can speak to

    different pedagogical approaches, speak to different disciplines in a

    variety of ways.

         And even, I will let you know in Washington state, they actually

    have a grant right now across the state for their entire community

    college system in which they are adopting antiracist writing

    assessment ecology for their faculty.

         And so this is happening at all levels.  ASU just actually

    released an article in the Journal of Writing Settlement in which

    they also talk about the ways they have adopted contract grading in

    their writing studio program, which is a fully online program.  So it

    also works across modalities.

         And then the U of A even has a faculty learning community that is

    dedicated to contract grading.  And so faculty can meet once a week

    with each other, share their contract grading practices and support

    each other in the continuous improvement of their assessment.

         So you can see it's there is so much flexibility and opportunity

    for faculty to think about the ways in which they can use assessment

    practices that are more innovative and more imaginative than the

    traditional mode.

         Some of the key benefits is it teaches students how to develop

    disciplinary skill and expertise.  Instead of focusing on the product

    that students create, which is what the traditional model usually





    does, contract grading approaches to assessment really teaches

    students how to become disciplinary experts and gain skill in our

    disciplines.

         It emphasizes what you need to do, and we all know, right, that

    in order to get good at something, it isn't just about having a fixed

    mindset and you're either good or bad at it, you actually have to

    practice it.  You have to get regular feedback from more experienced

    people, and then you have to use that feedback to continually

    improve.

         Of course this translates easily and beautifully in a field like

    mine where students are brainstorming, drafting, revising, editing,

    and getting that feedback from their peers, from their professor, to

    continue to grow as writers.

         But it can work in every discipline, right?  Because as we all

    know, as disciplinary experts, how did we get good at what we do?  We

    just did it a lot and we got a lot of feedback, right?

         That's kind of the key to contract grading.  It also removes any

    sort of arbitrary guesswork and mystery that can come along with

    grading.  I'm going to demonstrate that a little bit with some

    examples.

         I have some examples to make this a little bit more concrete for

    you, for my discipline, and of course I recognize that we all have

    different disciplinary areas with different needs, and this can look

    different.

         So I shared with you, through Josie, a few resources.  One is on





    what's called specifications grading, and so that is a system that is

    better for disciplines that maybe are more like STEM disciplines.  I

    shared a podcast with one of the scholars that inspires my work, Sal

    A, he does antiracist writing assessment work, so you could listen to

    him if you wanted to listen to what that's about.

         I also shared an inside higher ed article that came out recently

    in which this sort of imaginative innovative assessment is referred

    to as ungrading, and it is an article that looks at a variety of

    disciplines in the ways in which faculty are adapting these kinds of

    practices across disciplines.

         So back to some core examples from our discipline, in particular,

    writing.  Here are the outcomes for our 101 class, right?  We've got

    four outcomes.  As you can see, we know in assessment they have to be

    measurable, right?  We see things like verbs, critically read, write

    college-level essays, practice the writing processes, locate,

    evaluate, research.  So we can clearly determine our students doing

    this or not.

         I'm going to just go through, maybe, now my screen is being

    funky.  How do I get back?  Okay.  It there we go.  Okay.

         So to demonstrate a traditional model from our field, writing,

    right, this is old school rubric I used way back in the way when I

    was doing traditional grading assessment, and just what you can kind

    of see on the screen, right, is you have that concept of A as an

    essay as being excellent.  Notice that that's an adjective, right?

    Where B is good, and C is adequate, and so grades are actually





    quality assessments that are highly subjective.

         And this is incredibly problematic, because of course you know

    Josie and I are in the same discipline, and as you can see the first

    kind of indicator on the rubric here is that it's standard...

         >> TAL SUTTON:  When you click on the link in the PowerPoint it

    does not flip over to that on the shared screen.

         >> BROOKE ANDERSON:  Oh, weird.  That's a bummer.  So you guys

    are not seeing the rubric?

         >> TAL SUTTON:  You can share your whole screen rather than just

    --

         >> BROOKE ANDERSON:  Okay.  Let me try that again.

         So if I share this -- thank you for that, Tal.  Now I'm here, and

    I'm going to click on that again.  You see it now?

         >> TAL SUTTON:  Yes.

         >> BROOKE ANDERSON:  Awesome.  Here's what I was referring to,

    right?  And so of course when it comes to, say, correct use of

    standard written English, right, one is excellent, one is good, what

    is adequate?  Is excellent no mistakes whatsoever or is it 0 to 2?

    How do you measure that?

         Am I going to have the same assessment of what's excellent as

    opposed to what Josie would say is excellent?  You can see how this

    becomes incredibly problematic.  And also a lot of times it's

    associated with trying to create a point scale which you can see in

    the final column.

         What ends up having in this traditional model, which is really,





    really disheartening and discouraging for students, is that grading

    becomes a justification for a grade.  Assessment becomes a

    justification.  It becomes very punitive.  And it's like I'm going to

    dock five points because you had comma errors.  It becomes so petty

    and really not very good for faculty/student relationships and it

    doesn't focus on the learning and growth.

         So if we go back to, I'm going to share now with you what I

    include in my syllabus, right?  So of course we insert how we grade

    and how students can expect to be graded in our classes.

         That's something we individually fill in.  This is an example of

    my grade statement from my writing 102 class.  What you can see is

    that in my opening little caveat, I emphasize that grades are earned.

    So the emphasis is on work, rigorous, rigorous work, and when you

    have a contract system that functions well, it actually inspires

    students to work hard because the letter grades become achievable by

    everyone in the class, and we know, again, right, if you work hard at

    something, you get better at it.

         So that's what we want to teach our students how to do is how to

    work hard at something and get better at it.  We don't want to just

    be having this fixed mindset, oh, you're a good writer, you're a bad

    writer.  You're good at math, you're bad at math.  No, that's a fixed

    mindset.  We're never going to get people to develop their skills if

    that's the way we assess their work.

         And so you'll see here then after that what I do is I spell out

    specifically what they need to do to get the letter grade and what





    the letter grade means, right?

         So for me, an A is that they met all expectations.  To get an A

    in my class, you have to do every assignment.  You have to attend.

    Of course this is a little bit of a sticky area, but we all know if

    students don't attend they don't do well.  You have to turn in your

    work.  Most importantly in my discipline you have to revise when I

    tell you to revise.

         And if you do those things, you're absolutely going to achieve

    the course outcomes and it's focused on the learning.

         What does this look like then in a rubric, right?  And again,

    this is my approach.  Faculty can adopt all kinds of different ways

    of doing this kind of assessment.

         So this is an example of my rubric.  What you can see here, this

    is a 101 example.  It's for an argument paper.  You can see that the

    caveat on the top is you have to meet everything to pass the class,

    right?  So I do believe that there is a lot of value in giving

    students our subjective expert opinion on their work, but that should

    be as separated as possible from the grade.

         They either meet or don't meet the criteria, and so either earn

    the credit or don't earn the credit, and of course should have lots

    of opportunities to earn the credit.  This is my personal way of

    thinking about the contract in my class, right?

         Although I also think it's really, really important to especially

    let students know when I'm impressed by what they've done.  So this

    is holistic, there is no points, right.  I don't give it a letter





    grade.  They just have to do it, and I give them feedback on it, and

    they revise, right?

         So here, you know, did they have an arguable main claim, a

    thesis?  They either did or they didn't.  Maybe I thought it was

    super amazing, and I'm going to tell them that if I did.

         And so if they don't have a thesis, yeah, they didn't achieve the

    course outcomes, they didn't practice the thing they needed to do,

    they haven't mastered that, so they're going to revise.

         And we're going to have that dialogue about how you write a

    thesis and I'm going to help them get there.

         I know all of my students, for me in particular in my discipline,

    they are literate, capable, they can do this, can achieve the course

    outcomes, can grow as writers, and so I know that they can all pass

    the class.  If they want to work hard and earn an A, they absolutely

    all deserve to earn that A.  It should not be based on whether or not

    I like their writing.

         I share with them whether or not I like their writing.  I share

    with them whether or not I agree with the things they say in their

    papers, but I do not base my grades on that.

         So hopefully that helps.  I know I'm rushing, this is a quick

    only 10 minutes, trying to give you a down and dirty feel for what a

    contract may really look like to give something tangible to connect

    with.

         So here I just highlight again some of the benefits of this kind

    of a system.  It really does improve student/teacher relationships.





    When I was a younger teacher, less-experienced teacher, I got into

    conflicts with students.  I got into grade disputes, all these kinds

    of things because the system was pretty petty, I can admit to that.

    Why did they lose five points for this or five points for that,

    right?

         Now with this system, I never get grade complaints ever.  Because

    students know the expectations.  They are clear.  They are

    achievable.  And there is a conversation happening between me and

    them.

         That really inspires them to work hard, because it's whatever

    they want to achieve is reachable.

         It makes a class a lot more interesting and engaging, because

    students can be themselves and they don't have to worry so much about

    whether I'm going to like their work, and so you don't ever get into

    these issues of, like, you know, oh, the teacher didn't like me and

    that's why they gave me a bad grade.  Contract grading gets rid of

    all of that and makes it a much more engaging process for both

    faculty and students to use.

         It makes responding to student work so much more fun.  Of course

    I know I speak to my writing faculty colleagues in particular about

    this, but grading can be such a bumper, because who wants to slap a

    label on a paper and say, you're a C, this sucks.

         I don't know if you feel that way in your discipline.  You may

    have somewhat different ways of thinking about the work, but it's so

    much more fun to actually engage in what students are doing and





    having a conversation to help them grow and develop as writers when

    you don't have to label it and justify why you're docking points.

    It's not the system of, like, discipline and punish.  It really does

    help students to work hard and acknowledges the work that they do.

    Yet they still are working rigorously, growing, and achieving the

    course outcomes.

         It also, one of the benefits, it encourages reflection,

    encourages risk taking, and encourages learning from failure.  They

    can try things and not succeed and try again, and there isn't so much

    online.

         It also eliminates rewarding plagiarism and cheating, because

    there is no reason to.  It's about their learning and their growth.

    So you're not rewarded for cheating or plagiarizing.

         And then students pass classes and they actually have gained

    skill, confidence, and they really feel proud of what they have done

    when they finish your class and move on.

         I invite you to a couple of things.  First, I sent a Google form

    to you guys today.  For anyone who is interested in exploring

    contract grading in more detail, that one is just if you're

    interested and you want to think about it more, want to think about

    maybe how you might adopt these kinds of practices, fill out the

    form, it just asks for your name and your e-mail so I can be in

    contact.

         Frankie Rollens is another writing colleague of mine is also a

    firm practitioner of contract grading.  She too has been doing it for





    over a decade, so her and I are going to lead a virtual learning

    community in the spring through the TLC that's focused on contract

    grading.

         We actually are going to make it more of a workshop where we give

    you basic principles and spend several sessions over a period of time

    working on developing assessments that are contract grading

    assessments for classes.

         Then, like Josie had said earlier, Faculty Senate systemic

    justice action committee in the spring is going to be focusing on

    innovative assessment practices that are equitable, so if you're

    interested in contract grading or you're interested in some other

    kinds of innovative assessment practices, I highly, highly encourage

    you to join the committee and work with us in the spring.

         Finally, I just want to say that, you know, this is just one

    practice, one form of this kind of assessment.  So I realize that I

    bet a lot of faculty are actually out there doing this kind of

    innovative work already.  We just don't get a chance to talk about it

    and share this with each other and learn from each other.

         So you'll see that this month I really am putting a call out

    there for you to share with me your innovative assessment practices.

    I'd really like to share those with the board in the next board

    meeting.

         So please let me know what you guys are doing in your disciplines

    and your individual classes to practice these sort of innovative

    socially just, equitable assessment practices.  Then please





    participate in conversations that come up.

         All right.  Thank you.  I don't know if there are any questions

    or if we have time for questions or comments.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  We are over, and several people did have to

    leave, but please read the chat, because there are a lot of great

    comments in chat and interest in the group.

         All right.  Thank you so much, Brooke.  I received so many

    questions about contract grading over the last couple weeks.  So I

    appreciate you providing a clearer picture for all of us of what it

    is.

         We will continue this discussion moving forward.  I will get

    through my items pretty quickly.  We are moving on to the president's

    report section.

         First item, we have three, No. 1, All Faculty Day meeting and

    next Faculty Senate meeting, January 12.  The agenda is still being

    worked out, so I don't know the exact time, but I'm sure we will get

    that information very soon.

         The survey that I sent out last time, I get three responses, and

    one of them I will speak to with our next item.  The other two were

    about increased workload because of virtual online instruction.  The

    other one was about would like to discuss guided pathways,

    specifically the student guidance aspect of it.

         Thank you for those comments, and if you have any others, that

    survey is still open, so please contribute.

         Item No. 3, potential task force on adjunct faculty conditions.





    One of the comments I received through that form was about concerns

    about adjunct faculty conditions and not getting addressed.

         So I communicated with that individual, and spoke about it with

    some others.  We determined a good path moving forward could be not a

    Faculty Senate task force but a task force on adjunct faculty

    conditions.  This is just to alert you this will be a business item

    in January, and so what we will do is discuss it in January in more

    detail and either improve or endorse recommending that such a task

    force exist for the college with Faculty Senate representation on it.

         So those are my three items.  With that, we can turn it over to

    reports unless there are any questions.  Suddenly so quiet.  Can

    someone just let me know you're awake, unmute yourself?

         >> I'm awake.

         >> We're here.

         >> I don't remember seeing those surveys.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  It's linked, I will put a link in the chat,

    and that will make it easy to access.

         >> Maybe because I'm working so hard.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Could be.  It's easy to miss things these

    days.  I will put it in the chat.  It's still open.  Thanks so much

    for sticking with us.  I know we are over time.  We have had some

    really good discussions, and we are ready to move to our reports.

         First one is, I believe, Matej.  So Matej, if you'd like to step

    up to the virtual podium, I will turn it over to you.

         >> MATEJ BOGUSZAK:  Thanks, Josie.  Hello again, everybody.  Hope





    you're all staying sane at the end of this insane semester.  We have

    had to all make big adjustments and work a lot more probably.

         Thank you for all you have done helping our students get through.

         As the chancellor noted, more and more of them are getting stuck

    in this gig economy of ours, where workers have these new options for

    work but are frequently exploited and work far below minimum wage and

    they may already be drowning in student loan debt, if they tried

    college out or have finished.

         This whole direction is honestly pretty scary to me.  Our country

    is becoming more and more unequal, and for the first time really in

    history as far as I have heard the youngest generation is worse off

    than their parents' generation, on average of course.

         So I don't think this is the kind of future we want, and Pima

    exists precisely to help people out of this cycle.  So again, I'm

    just excited to be part of Pima here.

         You probably noticed PCCEA kept a pretty low profile this

    semester.  Maybe you have enjoyed not being inundated from me with

    long e-mails.  Please know we have been doing our work in the

    background more.

         A number of faculty contacted us more recently about this

    required cellphone number kerfuffle.  We had brought your concerns

    forward.  Dolores took time to talk to us along with Kate, and they

    brought it forward.  Hopefully the follow-up information from Lisa

    Brodsky was helpful.

         We have been involved in the different class and comp committees





    getting underway.  Right now there was actually a Town Hall scheduled

    at the same time as Faculty Senate.  Morgan Phillips, instructional

    transformational group, and we asked for a meeting soon with finance

    just to discuss next year's budget in light of the new expenditure

    limitation relief and also some new revenue coming in as a result of

    Prop 207.  But at the same time, enrollment keeps declining and there

    is a whole lot in the picture and we'd just like to be part of the

    conversation.

         I'm sure you're going to hear much more of these efforts in the

    spring when some more details start crystalizing.

         We will also send out our annual survey.  I don't think anyone

    wants to do another survey at this point, and again we will have more

    of those details more clear in the spring and you can provide your

    thoughts on specific questions.

         Finally, nominations for the all employee representative council

    reps closed today.  There was an e-mail that went out from Aubrey, I

    think it was through Dolores' office, so please feel free to let me

    know if you have any questions, if you'd like to nominate yourself or

    a colleague.  And just a reminder, this is the college body

    responsible for the Meet and Confer process on policies and regarding

    compensation and working conditions and that whole employee handbook

    we touched on earlier.

         Any questions or concerns?  All right.  Have a great winter

    break, everybody.  We will see you on All Faculty Day.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Thank you, Matej.  Thank you for all you do





    and your tireless work and keeping us updated and working hard for

    faculty.

         Next up we have our provost report.  I'd like to turn it over to

    our provost, Dr. Dolores Duran-Cerda.

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  Thank you, Josie.  Hello, everyone.

    It's great to see you.  It's a Friday afternoon.  I hope you have a

    wonderful and restful weekend.  I know grading is ramping up.  Finals

    are coming up, so many responsibilities to be done.  I remember those

    days, and so I thank you for everything that you're doing and have

    done this semester.

         Really, as you know, as we all know, these last eight months,

    nine months now, after we shut down our services at the campuses on

    March 16, have been incredible.  And you have been incredible and

    amazing in stepping up and helping our students.

         I wanted to start off by expressing my gratitude.  You have

    probably saw that in my Thanksgiving message too that I am grateful

    and appreciative of your role in keeping your students engaged and

    retaining them so they can accomplish their goals in these awful

    times.

         They are going through, juggling work and families, other

    responsibilities, and you're making it possible for them to finish

    what they need to do for their lives and to go on to their next

    chapter.

         I also wanted to thank Joe Brewer and Anthony Sovak for their

    roles in Faculty Senate.  Thank you so much.  It's been a pleasure





    working with you.  Yes, congratulations and thank you for all of your

    support and for faculty and advocacy of them.

         Also, I wanted to thank the officers of Faculty Senate.  We meet

    with them, administration meets with them once a month, and we have

    really great conversations, very productive, and collaborative, and

    we are making a lot of headway.

         Thank you, Josie, Joe, Tal, Brooke for these wonderful meetings.

    We will continue.  We have one next week I think too.

         Before I go on, I'd like to check in and ask how everybody's

    doing.  Are you hanging in there?  Are you doing okay?  Just give me

    a nod or a thumbs up or thumbs down or mas or menos.  I know it's

    been tough.  I know it's been tough.  You're almost there.  You can

    rest hopefully over the break.

         These holiday times are challenging and different too with not

    being able to spend time with the people you want to see, friends and

    family, but it will pass.  We'll get through it together.

         I wanted to go through the provost's report.  Are there any

    questions about the schedule?  That's part of the provost report,

    spring and fall schedule.

         Please understand the spring schedule is following the same

    format, virtual and online, with a handful of hybrid classes.  As

    Josie explained and Dr. Mitchell, that the fall schedule most likely

    following the same format, virtual, online, with a few hybrids, those

    classes we can't put completely online because of accreditation

    standards or the content is not feasible to do that, but with plan B





    hopefully pivot if we can to more face-to-face and hybrid classes.

    And Ken, we'll take into consideration your concerns and we will be

    talking to the deans and department heads about that.  We will have

    more options like Hyflex.  I think we will be piloting that in the

    fall semester with some of the science classes, and the campus VPs

    and deans are looking at what other disciplines could be

    experimenting or piloting for Hyflex, as well.

         Soon you'll be getting an e-mail from me with all the deadlines

    and just a reminder, all faculty and adjunct faculty, what's coming

    up, when are grades due, when are the CLOs due.  They are in the

    provost report but I will send you an e-mail with more details about

    that, and thank you, Kate, and teaching and learning center for your

    contributions to that.

         On the second page, campus teaching options, I know some faculty

    find it difficult to, like, for example, if it's a lab kind of

    experience that you want to share with your students, it would be

    better to be in an actual lab and not at home in the kitchen or

    something like that.

         So we are working with the campus VPs so that you have that

    option of perhaps recording a session, a class session, or a demo

    that you'd like to share with your students, and then post it on D2L.

         Or if you feel like the space at home isn't conducive to teaching

    for whatever reason, that perhaps you can teach from your office or

    someplace else on the campus, so please contact your campus vice

    president and dean to let them know that you're interested in that,





    so we'll hopefully be able to accommodate.

         But very carefully keeping in mind that we can't have very many

    people on campus because of the COVID situation.

         But we want to make sure that you know that you have these

    options.

         The same goes with students.  I was going to mention too and I

    think Dr. Dori is on the line, and he can elaborate a little bit

    more, but this week we are piloting at the Desert Vista Campus some

    open study space for students, because again, they may not have a

    place at home that is conducive to studying and concentrating.  They

    may have children, they have to tend to, or elderly parents, so they

    need to concentrate and focus on their finals, studying for that or

    completing a project.

         So we're having appointments at Desert Vista where students can

    sign up and take a couple of hours to complete their work there.

         So I don't know, Dr. Dori, are you on the call and would like to

    elaborate anything?  He may have left.  So I will continue then.

         If you have any questions, actually please reach out to Edgar,

    Edgar Soto, campus VP at Desert Vista, because he's leading that

    effort to add the Desert Vista Campus.

         Going on a couple more things, I know we need to wrap up, and

    continue with I think it's Brooke going to be giving the Governing

    Board report.

         But just wanted to let you know, we are welcoming Dr. Ricardo

    Salazar to the teaching and learning center and faculty affairs where





    he will be in the role of training and curriculum developer, and we

    are very exciting to use his expertise in that and will be helping

    out the teaching and learning center efforts and faculty affairs.

         Going on to other aspects of the report, All Faculty Day is, as

    Josie mentioned, it will be on Tuesday, January 12.  There was

    confusion because it was published as two different dates, and of

    course we didn't want it to be right before classes started, so I

    remember getting ready for the first day of the semester, there is a

    lot to do so we wanted to give a bigger buffer and we are starting on

    the 12th.  We will have more information and details about the actual

    agenda, but we are very happy that the theme is Culture of

    Imagination, Inquiry and Innovation, Shaping a New Story for the

    Future.

         I have been visiting various division meetings and you have been

    sharing your creative and innovative ways of teaching before COVID

    and after COVID how that's been ramped up.  That's where the idea

    came up about creativity and imagination and inquiry.

         Attendance training, Alvia B has created kind of a tutorial, so

    if you would like to take a look at that or share that with your

    fellow colleagues and adjunct faculty, be sure to look at the link.

         Then faculty services and resources center has some information

    there for you as well as the library, already talked about the spring

    and fall schedules.  Matej mentioned instructional systems redesign

    that Morgan has been working on.  There was a survey sent out and

    thank you to those who responded.  There were over 200 responses, so





    we are happy with the result of that and that's going to be

    evaluated.

         Then faculty, adjunct faculty activity stipends, we know adjunct

    faculty participate in committee work so we want to make sure they

    are compensated for those assignments that are assigned to them.

         Just to kind of follow up on what Josie said about task force, I

    see Kate is here, so maybe, Kate, you can elaborate on the meetings

    that we have had.  We had a meeting today with adjunct faculty and

    talked about creating a task force.

         Go ahead, Kate, and give us a summary of what that task force

    will be doing.

         >> KATE SCHMIDT:  So I think this actually came from a

    combination of conversations, including one I had with Josie, but

    after a meeting that you convened at the chancellor's direction with

    Hernan and Sean and a couple other I believe adjunct faculty senators

    and other adjunct faculty representatives earlier this week, we were

    looking at specific things we could work on to improve the working

    conditions for adjunct faculty.

         You have now tasked me to take a lead on three specific areas,

    and I'm hoping I can remember all three.  I know you'll put it in

    writing to me, but one is the compensation in particular for the

    Desire2Learn training and other professional development.  I know

    that's on your media agenda on Monday.

         The second is some sort of compensation, better communication and

    recognition of the fact when classes are canceled very close to the





    semester adjunct faculty have put in significant work in preparing

    those classes and that some compensation and communication about

    timelines on that could be clearer.

         And then the third is the one that I was afraid I was going to

    forget.  Oh, this was relatively new to me, and I think it had to do

    with, has to do with the fact we have seen the decline in the number

    of CRNs is we don't have clear processes or guidelines for department

    heads and deans, when they are staffing classes sort of when there

    are not enough classes to match the number of adjunct faculty who

    have taught and want to continue to teach, who's selected to staff

    that class.

         I think that's one, the other two we have done significant

    groundwork on, this third one, that will be a matter of having

    discussions with deans and department heads and coming up with

    something that's sort of -- I see it as sort of some guidelines

    college-wide.

         The goal is to have recommendations back to you by April 15 so

    that any recommendations we can implement would be implemented for

    fall 2021.

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  Thank you, Kate.  So I don't want to

    make a redundant task force.  Josie, you had mentioned a task force,

    too, so maybe we can talk about how that will work.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Thank you.  Kate was actually the person who

    was brainstorming with me, so --

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  Oh, okay.





         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  I think conversations haven't come together.

    But we will talk and make sure we don't have any redundancy.

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  Perfect.  That concludes my report

    unless you have questions.  Matej, you asked a question about who

    will be running the international program.  I was in the middle of

    writing in the chat but I will go ahead and say it verbally.

         As you probably know, Bruce Moses is overseeing international,

    athletics, financial aid, registrar's office, and so he will continue

    overseeing that for now until there is a search.

         It hasn't been decided if the position will continue as a VP

    level or a different level, executive director or something like

    that.  That hasn't been decided yet.  More information to come.  I

    hope that answers your question.

         Yeah?  Okay.  Good.  Any other questions?

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Thank you so much, Provost.  Thank you for

    always being here, for your support, for listening, and to just

    providing all the, just listening and taking our concerns into

    consideration, and also accepting our appreciation which, I don't

    know if we give it enough, but we are very appreciative of you, just

    your stable, consistent presence over years but certainly within

    these last nine months.

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  Thank you.  Thank you for your kind

    words.

         Thank all of you.  I really do care and appreciate every single

    one of you in your role as advocating for faculty on Faculty Senate.





    I wish you wonderful holidays.  Felices Fiestas, everyone!  Thank

    you.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  All right.  We have one more item, and that

    is Brooke Anderson with the Governing Board report.

         >> BROOKE ANDERSON:  Thank you, Josie.  Luckily this will be

    super fast and quick, because the last Governing Board meeting

    happened before our last senate meeting, so there is no updates for

    the board meetings at this time.

         The next board meeting will be on February 3, so we still have a

    while.  I will just reiterate, I really would like to know what your

    notable accomplishments are, and in particular, please send me

    anything you can about what you individually do or your divisions or

    departments do that illustrates innovative, socially just, equitable

    assessment practices that you have adopted.

         Again, I will just reiterate, these look really different in

    different disciplines.  It's really more thinking about the whole

    concept of assessment and the ways in which we really can achieve the

    outcomes and designing our assessments to achieve those outcomes.

         So I know this looks really different in all kinds of different

    ways and we used all kinds of different language to talk about these

    things, so please, please, send me those updates so that I can share

    them with the Governing Board in February.

         Other than that, that is it from me.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  Thank you, Brooke.  You deserve a great deal

    of appreciation, also, to are your consistent attendance at the





    Governing Board meeting and just so many things but in particular you

    highlighting faculty accomplishments and achievements and successes,

    and getting that in writing has been a fantastic development that you

    are responsible for.

         So thank you.

         >> BROOKE ANDERSON:  Thank you, Josie.

         >> JOSIE MILLIKEN:  We are towards the end of the meeting, and as

    we conclude fall of 2020, I would so love to share words that

    encapsulate in some way the last, I don't know, eight or nine months,

    but I don't really have any.

         All it really comes down to is I appreciate -- I'm just blown

    away by the caring and compassionate and community-oriented mutual

    support nature that all of you and the college contributes to.

         For that, that continues to give me energy and fuel to move

    forward.  So I just am concerned about the future, like all of you,

    but thankful to be in all in this with all of you.

         Thank you for all you do, because I know you/we all work so

    incredibly hard because we care deeply about the students, about this

    college, and about this community.

         So on that note, I just want to say thank you and we will meet

    again in January.  In the meantime, please, take care, stay safe, and

    stay well.

         (Adjournment.)





                         *********************************************

                DISCLAIMER: THIS CART FILE WAS PRODUCED FOR COMMUNICATION

    ACCESS AS AN ADA ACCOMMODATION AND MAY NOT BE 100% VERBATIM. THIS IS

    A DRAFT FILE AND HAS NOT BEEN PROOFREAD. IT IS SCAN-EDITED ONLY, AS

    PER CART INDUSTRY STANDARDS, AND MAY CONTAIN SOME PHONETICALLY

    REPRESENTED WORDS, INCORRECT SPELLINGS, TRANSMISSION ERRORS, AND

    STENOTYPE SYMBOLS OR NONSENSICAL WORDS. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT

    AND MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED, PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

             THIS FILE SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED IN ANY FORM (WRITTEN OR

    ELECTRONIC) AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OR POSTED TO ANY WEBSITE OR

    PUBLIC FORUM OR SHARED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE

    HIRING PARTY AND/OR THE CART PROVIDER. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL

    TRANSCRIPT AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR PURPOSES OF VERBATIM

    CITATION.

                     *********************************************