General Meeting Information
Date: February 7,
Time: 2:30 - 4:20 p.m.
Time Topic Purpose Discussion Leader 2:30-2:35
(representatives who have not updated their report-out and wish to, please do so)
D All 2:35-2:40 Approval of Agenda and Minutes from Jan. 31, 2022 A Balm, Lee 2:40-2:45
I All 2:45-2:50 Needs and Confirmations I. Hiring Committees
District Hiring Procedue AP 4130
A Balm 3:15-3:30 Virtual Posters I/D All 3:30-4:05
Shared Governance Task Force (Discussion begun Nov 15, 2021)
D/A Nguyen, Pape 4:05-4:20 Report Outs and Good of the Order I/D All
To request to add an item to the agenda of a future Academic Senate meeting, email firstname.lastname@example.org by noon on the Wednesday before.
A = Action
D = Discussion
I = Information
Cheryl reminded representatives to update their report-out.
Approval of Agenda and Minutes from January 31, 2022
- Mark moved, Mary D seconded to approve both minutes and agenda. No objection.
- Agenda and minutes approved by unanimous consent.
No public comments
Needs and Confirmation
Medical Laboratory Technician Instructor/ Coordinator
Anita Muthyala-Kandula, Dean BHES, Chair of Committee
Maureen Miramontes, Faculty, HTEC
Judy Cuff Alvarado, Faculty, Biology
Jason Bram, Faculty, HTEC
Amy Leonard, EO Representative
Diana moved, Lisa Mesh seconded to approve the committee. No objection. Committee approved.
Faculty Coordinator/Counselor, PRIDE Center
Updated-Alicia (Terrence) Mullens to replace Julie Lewis who will be on sabbatical in the spring quarter. Also, adding a classified professional from student activities. The committee has not met yet.
Alicia Cortez, Dean E & E, Chair of Committee
Julie Lewis, AfrAm Studies/WMST; LGBTQ course Instructor
Roseanne Quinn, EWRT-Former JMRR Faculty Coordinator
Jorge Morales, Counseling-Learning Comm.
Elvin Ramos, EO Representative
Alicia (Terrence) Mullens, Faculty, Astronomy
Maritza Arreola, Coord, Student Activities
Erik moved, Felisa seconded to approve the faculty replacement. No objections. Change approved.
District Hiring Procedure AP 4130 (third read)
AP4130 was the administrative hiring procedure. There were three sections. The Senate has been discussing Section C of the faculty hiring procedures. The part being brought back for discussion was the inclusion of students on faculty hiring committees.
In the January 31 meeting, Cheryl presented some possible Options for including students on faculty hiring committees.
Two weeks ago, there was a motion to remove students from the proposed changes to the faculty hiring procedures. The motion called for a return to the old language that did not include students serving on the faculty hiring committees. That motion has been tabled twice. In the last meeting, it was tabled for DASG discussion and feedback.
Adel: DASG discussed and voted to support the inclusion of students in the faculty hiring committees and the language of “may include students.” Even though they would like to have students included in the hiring process, they understood the Senate concerns about time commitment and capacity.
Melinda: DDEAC (District Diversity and Equity Advisory Committee) had some concerns, difficulties, and barriers for student involvement. Compensation for students and part time faculty that participate in the hiring process or committees. They had discussions but no final solutions. Some of the concerns included: How to define a student? What are the minimum units required? What happened if a student dropped off?
Mary D reported that FA is officially neutral on the subject.
Erik had a question for the DASG representatives. Students seem eager to have the option but it seemed like there were significant concerns about how to actually involve students. It is possible that after pushing for the change to find that there's not actually a way to do it effectively.
Adel: DASG have discussed the concerns. They agreed that students should be included, but they are not against students being excluded. She can bring it back to DASG for more discussion on how students may participate in the process.
Cheryl suggested that DASG should continue their own conversation and take their decision directly to DDEAC.
Mary P asked Adel for clarification on the DASG discussion and vote. Did DASG looked at and decided on the wording, “students may be included,” and also, “that inclusion might be at a limited capacity such as during a town hall or doing the teaching demonstrations inclusion at a limited capacity?”
Adel: Yes, limited capacity due to the concern for time commitment.
Rick: There were more huddles with getting students involved than previously thought. He proposed taking a vote on the motion instead of discussing how to overcome the hurdles.
Mark raised concern for part time faculty candidates having students enrolled in their classes served on their hiring committees.
Cheryl: In the current proposed language, “students wishing to serve on the faculty hiring committee will be appointed by DASG, or SFC, must be in good academic standing enrolled in at least eight units or equivalent; any students serving on the search committee shall not be enrolled in the department during the hiring process.”
Gokce asked for reasons for not including students on the hiring committee.
Cheryl gave a quick recap of discussions from previous meetings. For a student to serve on a full hiring committee; there is the long time committee to read all the application, also the process could run over several quarter, even into the summer, will the student still be around; there is also the confidentiality issues, since they are not district employees; there was also the question about compensation also training. She pointed out the different options for student participation if they do not serve on the full committee.
Erik asked for reasons for this change. Student evaluations play an important role in the tenure process in contrast to classified and administrative staff that do not get any student evaluations. Given that students already have a voice in the tenure evaluation he questioned the reason for inserting them in a less convenient time that is more of a burden and with less compensation.
Felisa pointed out that faculty worked directly with students, therefore it is important to get student perspective and input when the faculty are hired.
Cheryl explained that the “may” and the “limited capacity” language allows hiring managers to come up with ways to include student voices in the hiring process.
Erik had sincere objections. He admitted that students do bring value in bringing feedback on instructors. However, he had reservations about its implementation in the overly complicated hiring process.
Called for a vote on the motion to remove students from the hiring process.
Yes 9, No 13. The motion failed.
Mary P moved in favor of the following language, Felisa seconded.
“Students may be included as full members of the hiring committee or in limited-capacity roles, such as giving input during interviews, teaching demonstrations or open forums.”
Mary D pointed out it said “may” instead of “will.”
It will be up to the hiring manager to decide on the “may.” For most instructional faculty, the hiring manager will be the dean.
Carol: While serving as a FA representative on the Facilities Committee, she observed that students attended and participated in the discussions. There are two student trustees on the Board of Trustees. They make important contributions to the public sessions. They do not go into the closed sessions where confidential matters are discussed, and they do not have a vote. The student trustees have an advisory vote. The students were not elected to serve on the board and they're not employees. In full time hiring committees students may attend teaching demonstrations or open public forums and provide advisory feedback, but students should not be in the confidential parts of the meetings, as it would be a serious liability and confidentiality issue. Also, there was the time commitment issue for students to serve on the full hiring committee. She advocated for option #4. “students may serve only in limited roles and provide feedback in that limited capacity.”
Erik and Carol suggested a conflict of interest for students enrolled in a faculty’s classes to serve in the hiring committees.
Call for a vote on the motion.
Yes 5, No 17. Motion failed.
Mary P moved on option #4, Diana seconded.
“Students may serve on the hiring committee only in limited-capacity roles, such as giving input during interviews, teaching demonstrations or open forums and may not be part of the initial screening of application materials to protect the students’ time and the applicants’ privacy.”
Erik motioned to amend the current language to include a restriction prohibiting students that had been in those classes for that department or division previously. Janice seconded.
Yes 2, No 19, Abstain 1. Amendment failed.
Rusty moved to remove the word “interview.” Lauren seconded.
Erik: point of clarification. This would exclude teaching demonstrations that are part of the interview process that is typical practice for chemistry.
Yes 13, No 3, Abstain 4. Amendment passed
“Students may serve on the hiring committee only in limited-capacity roles, such as giving input during, teaching demonstrations or open forums and may not be part of the initial screening of application materials to protect the students’ time and the applicants’ privacy.”
Yes 15, No 5, Abstain 1. Motion passed.
The Senate has voted on two parts of this AP. Cheryl gave the body the option to have it back next week to discuss and vote on other parts of the procedures.
The draft resolution will come back for discussion and vote.
Shared Governance Task Force (Discussion begun Nov 15, 2021)
The Shared Governance Task Force SGTF came to the Senate with its first update on September 27 and shared proposal 1.0 on November 15.
Mary Pape and Jim Nguyen returned to facilitate a dialog on the proposal revision and to gather more feedback in the Second Read
Mary: The aim and desired outcomes in the SGTF plan-
End siloed planning and resource allocation by having one committee where all is discussed.
Parity in representation where all constituencies and affinity groups are included in the decision-making process in an equitable manner.
All have equal access to the same information at the same time and before discussion or decision making begins.
The current shared governance structure as it appeared in the Governance Handbook Table of Contents is misleading. The list included District Governance Groups and District Bargaining Units that are not under the purview of De Anza College or SGTF task. There are three Senates. AS and DASG are legally mandated and not under De Anza purview.
SGTF proposed to add two new committees to the existing governance groups. Budget Committee and Program Allocation Committee (PAC)
In the current governance groups structure, there are two groups that are not connected: the Campus Facilities Committee and the Campus Center Advisory Board.
Jim shared and explained the SGTF Proposed Shared Governance Group Model. They tried to respond to the surveys on shared governance that went to affinity groups and feedback from groups currently in the shared governance structure. The purpose was to end siloed decision making, to create more transparency and to facilitate communication.
They explained the composition and workflow for PAC. It will lead to robust and inclusive decision making done in an efficient and collegial manner.
As SGTF examined the structural challenges, they found even more cultural challenges at De Anza. They envisioned how PAC will address these challenges.
Disparate decision-making processes among existing PBTs. Consolidation to the overarching PAC will result in a uniform process.
Lack of communication among existing PBTs and other governance bodies. PAC membership should incorporate all organizational groups and constituencies to ensure broad participation, transparency, and holistic decision-making.
Lack of trust that the decision-making process is being undertaken in good faith. Checks and balances are needed to ensure that power is shared across constituency groups, such as:
VPs as ex-officio members of PAC; term limits and limits on chairing/participating on multiple bodies.
Written, public rubrics for fund allocation ranking.
Consensus or majority vote needed for passage of recommendations to College Council.
Other challenges are embedded in the culture of the College and may not be conducive to change through structural means. Other solutions must be found to address them.
Inconsistent support from managers for Classified participation in governance.
Employees over-committed and overworked; many have no time to participate.
Unwillingness by some to relinquish power in decision-making processes.
Lip-service to issues without meaningful action or solutions.
Some groups ostensibly follow their charges per the Handbook but the reality of how decisions are made is more unilateral.
Mary ended the presentation with a glossary that listed and explained the types of governance groups at De Anza.
SGTF asked for comments,suggestions, feedback, and questions. They also invited everyone to the February 16 Town Hall.
Dawn asked about the type of feedback and outcomes they expect from the Town Hall.
The Task Force will incorporate the feedback into their final proposal. They hoped to have another town hall before their presentation to the College Council for a vote in March.
Rana hoped to learn more about shared governance. Perhaps some type of professional development workshop.
Dawn noted the idea about creating professional development opportunities to learn about shared governance. She covered that on a basic level in new hire orientation for full time and part time faculty. She will work with the SGTF to expand those opportunities to educate people and get them comfortable to join the shared governance.
Jim: It is absolutely vital to recruit, retain and mentor students, faculty, and staff members into their shared governance roles.
There was mention of the need for shared governance groups to educate its members through the process of the meeting like the agenda and how the body makes its decisions.
Lee thanked Mary and Jim for the presentation; there was so much to appreciate like structural changes could lead to cultural changes, also some of the challenges the group has faced. She looked forward to the town hall. Increase transparency, decrease meeting fatigue, improve communication and collaboration; remove silos.
Mary P asked for feedback on the Budget Committee, whether it should be separated or rolled into the PAC.
Carol had a question about the Budget Task Force. Was it a real committee and what are its members? She suggested changing PAC to PACM.
Mary P shared a link for the Budget Task Force. She felt that the Budget Committee, if it exists, should not be making the decisions. They need to know the funds available and what they can be used for. That information has to be collected and given to the Program Allocation Committee.
SGTF was there to listen. They are anxious to hear what people are saying. They are flexible and nothing has been finalized.
Mark pointed out efficiency issues as in having VP as ex officio. They will be making recommendations on items that they will later vote on in CC.
Mary P, and Jim: There will be more equality of power in the tri-chairs. It will be a change in power dynamics. It will be a structural change for a cultural change. Everyone will be involved in decision making. It will be less hierarchical, less top down. Currently, the college president is ex officio in CC.
Cheryl related that it was not unlike her role as AS president. She does not vote except to break a tie. She will represent the Senate and its decision at the Board of Trustees.
There was discussion on how ex officio might work.
Dawn’s feedback. Much of this proposal hinges on evaluation and assessment done through program review and CAT standards. Will need a really good job of revising and updating or changing the program review. That served as the central linchpin for the entire decision making. IPBT has been struggling to revise questions in program reviews properly and appropriately. The budgetary decisions are based on the reviews. She also pointed out the need for parity of the tools and the right tools used in assessment, Program Review and CAT Standards if they are used side by side. Dawn also pointed out students in terms of their understanding and participation in shared governance. Students should have a role in making decisions that will benefit students. They will be impacted by decisions made on the departmental, division and program levels.
Gokce asked about the place for adjuncts in this shared governance model.
Jim: They wanted the model to be inclusive. Part time instructors are a huge part of this campus. They would like participation from both full time and part time ranks. There are some potential problems since most work at different places and their time and resources are limited. There should be incentives like pay for their work to participate in shared governance.
Cheryl invited SGTF to come back for more discussion. She appreciated the new slides that reflect some of the feedback.
Mary P: continue to send feedback to them and at the town hall.
Report Outs and Good of the Order
Mary P motioned, Mark seconded, to adjourn, no objection.
So Kam Lee
Part-time Faculty Representatives
Academic Services &
Career Technical Education & Workforce Development
Counseling - General
Counseling - Embedded
Disability Support Programs & Services and Adapted PE
Equity and Engagement
Physical Sciences, Math, & Engineering
Social Sciences & Humanities
Student Development & EOPS
Dawn Lee Tu
Faculty Association Representative*
Affinity Group Representatives*
Glynn Wallis, BFSA
De Anza President
VP of Student Services
VP of Instruction
VP of Administrative Services
Hyon Chu Yi-Baker
Director of College Life & Student Judicial Affairs
Associate VP of Communications & External Relations
De Anza Student Trustee
Dean of Business/Computer Info Systems
Tenure Review Coordinator
Dean of Creative Arts
Dean of Physical Education and Athletics
Dean of Language Arts
Dean of Equity and Engagement
Dean of Career & Technical Education (CTE)
Foothill Academic Senate President
FHDA District Academic Senate President
Dean of Counseling, DSPS & Title IX Coordinator
Dean of Biological, Health, and Environmental Sciences
Dean of Student Development/EOPS
Director of Financial Aid
Dean of Enrollment Services
Dean of Intercultural/International Studies
Dean of Physical Sciences, Math & Engineering
Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities
Director, Book Store
FHDA Research & Planning
Curriculum Committee Vice-Chair
Faculty Director of Equity, Social Justice & Multicultural Education
Meeting ID: 965 2582 7103
Phone one-tap: +16699006833,,96525827103# US (San Jose)