General Meeting Information

Date: February 10, 2025
Time: 2:30-4:30 PM
Location: MLC 255

This meeting will be held in a Hybrid modality, meaning anyone can participate in-person or online. To join remotely, see the Zoom information at the bottom of this page.

  • Agenda

    Time Topic Purpose Discussion Leader

    I. Call to Order

    2:30

    Welcome
    Voting and Associate members joining us online, please turn your cameras on and add "VM" to your zoom name to help identify you to the public.

    (Please complete your report out if you haven't already)

    I All
    2:30-2:35 Approval of Agenda and Minutes from February 3rd, 2025. I/D/A All
    2:35-2:40

    Public Comment

    I All

    II. Consent Calendar

    2:40 - 2:45

    Consent Calendar:

    • Senate Nominating and Elections Committee: Ishmael Tarikh
    I/D/A Guitron

    III. Needs and Confirmations

    2:40 - 2:45

    District and College Needs (Attachment)

    • Senate Events Committee
    • Senate Nominating and Elections Committee
    I/D Guitron
    2:40 - 2:45

    Confirmations -  None

    I/D/A Guitron

    IV. New & Continuing Business

    2:45 - 2:55

    Quick Notes:

    I/D

    Woodbury

    2:55-3:25

    Equity Rubric Discussion

    I/D/A Woodbury
    3:25 - 3:55

    Discussion of FW Grade Assignment

    • Use of FW vs F? Do we want both?
    • Requirements or guidance around Ws
    I/D/A Woodbury
    3:55 - 4:15

    Resolution in Support of Part-Time Faculty Compensation Equity (2nd Read)

    I/D

    Tarikh

    4:15 - 4:25

    Good of the Order

    Please review all report outs 

    I All
    4:25

    Adjournment

     

    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information

  • Minutes [DRAFT]

    I. Call to Order


    Welcome

    Erik Woodbury started the welcome with a reminder that the Senate will not meet next week in observance of the Presidents Day Holiday. 

    Also, representatives, please complete their report.


    Approval of Agenda and Minutes from February 3rd, 2025.

    Cynthia Kaufman moved, Alicia Mullens seconded to approve both minutes and agenda. No objection. Agenda and minutes approved by unanimous consent.


    Public Comment

    Ishmael Tarikh received an email from a part-time faculty member who is very concerned about the kick-in of the student-centered funding formula creating jeopardy for part-time faculty jobs.

    Erik Woodbury thanked Ishmael for raising that concern. He encouraged Ishmael and other faculty to email the officers with further details for them to discuss and look into the matter.

    Erik reminded people that they may submit attachments to be included in public comment in the published agenda prior to the meeting (by Friday noon, latest by Monday morning).

    James Adams gave an update on the OER workshop this Thursday for anyone wanting to know more about OER. Also, a reminder to fill out the OER survey for spring quarter.

    Black History Month

    Last week Erik Woodbury highlighted a black scientist, Benjamin Banneker. This week he highlighted two black artists Sam Gilliam and Stanley Whitney. Both artists were influential in abstract art. Sam Gilliam was best known for his color field painting as a part of the Washington Color School movement.


    II. Consent Calendar


    Consent Calendar:
    Senate Nominating and Elections Committee

    Need 3 executive members. One volunteer, Ishmael Tarikh.

    This item was moved to Needs and Confirmation to fill and approve the committee.


    III. Needs and Confirmation


    District and College Needs (Attachment)

    See attachment for ongoing needs.


    Confirmations
    Senate Nominating and Elections Committee

    Need 3 volunteers from the Executive Committee

    Volunteers: Ishmael Tarikh, James Adams, Sherwin Mendoza

    Senate Events Committee

    Planning, calendaring and identifying events for the Senate to sponsor or co-sponsor.

    Volunteers: Lauren Gordon, Christian Rodriquez

    Motion

    Alicia Mullens moved, Jayanti Roy seconded to approve the Senate Nominating and Elections Committee and the Senate Events Committee. No objection. Committees approved by unanimous consent.


    IV. New & Continuing Business


    Quick Notes:
    FHDA Board Update (see report out for more details)

    The meeting had a really long consent calendar that got approved quickly. There was a presentation from the Bond Oversight Committee on the state of bond expenditures and progress on various projects. There was also an overview of the proposed state budget as well as a legislative update on last year’s legislative session. Erik recommended that people look at the legislative report, scan through the powerpoint, to be more aware of the legislative direction. Contact Erik for more information on particular topics

    Campus Safety Resolution (Reminder) 

    The resolution will need a sponsor from the executive committee to continue working and moving it forward. Otherwise, this will not come back to the Senate for further discussion.


    Change to the Agenda

    The meeting was running ahead of schedule. It needed a motion for a change to the agenda.

    Motion

    Shagun Kaur moved to reorder the agenda and discuss as the next item the resolution in support of part-time faculty compensation equity. Cynthia Kaufman seconded. No objections.


    Resolution in Support of Part-Time Faculty Compensation Equity
    (2nd Read)

    Ishmael Tarikh started with some proposed changes to the resolution presented last week. It has become more complicated.

    His intent for the current discussion was to gather suggestions for moving forward. He has taken into account feedback already received.

    Ishmael emphasized that he was fully flexible about how this gets done, but inflexible about whether or not it gets done.

    One of the legitimate concerns raised last week was the potential depletion of the academic senate funds without increased income.

    Therefore, he suggested moving the effective date under the first resolve from spring 2025 to fall 2025. They need to find funding to support the new compensation and that will not happen in the proposed time frame. 

    The next adjustment was to reduce the maximum hourly compensation for part time faculty from 30 hours to 20 hours.

    Ishmael went over some “further explanation” in the updated draft.

    1) there continues to be a need for the Academic Senate to demonstrate financial and collegial support for the participation of PTF in Academic Senate work.  The proposed resolution sought alignment with the Foothill College Academic Senate Resolution (hence, the $750 stipend for the two at-large PTF Representatives)

    Currently, the De Anza at-large PTF Representative received a $300 stipend per quarter from the Academic Senate funds. Foothill has a different source of funding.

    2) there is a need to bifurcate the compensation of those elected to serve, and those who are appointed to serve. Those elected have committed to two years of service, they should be treated differently.

    The elected should get the quarterly stipend, while the appointed should be compensated at the hourly rate.

    3) the compensation as a recruitment tool and incentive for greater participation in Academic Senate activities for (both) elective and appointed participation.

    Ishmael and Mary Donahue were committed to recruiting more part-time participation across a broader range of faculty members.

    Funding Formula

    The Senate will need more income to offset the additional cost to the academic senate budget. It will need 55 to 85 new paying members providing $5 monthly dues.

    There were questions and conversations about compensation for part-time faculty appointed by the Senate to serve as a part-time faculty representative at a college-wide shared governance committee, such as RAPP. Also, identifying other committees that may be eligible for shared governance committee compensation.

    There was discussion over the calculation of an hourly rate based on Appendix G of the FA Agreement. The amount was estimated to be $1000 to $1700 for the maximum cap of 20 hours. The proposed resolution stated that the compensation should come “from a budgetary source not funded by the Academic Senate.” There were suggestions for more clarity and solution to this problem.

    Part-time faculty are limited in the effectiveness of their leverage in dealing with administrative sources. Therefore, for the resolution to succeed, they will need open and written support from the Senate as well as from FA, the faculty association. 

    Be inclusive and equitable. Treat everyone the same. Part time should be treated the same as full time. All should be equally encouraged to participate in shared governance. Whenever full time gets paid for non-teaching work, part time should be paid as well. Structural inequity is too great. The senate, FA, and managers have to work together for a solution.

    For some part timers teaching is not a side job. It is their livelihood. When they serve on shared governance committees, it takes time away from teaching a class at De Anza or at another school. They should be compensated for their work, but how.

    The budget and funding allocation were complicated. It should come from the same budget that pays the salary but it can't be put into a salary like office hour pay. 

    There is no extra money. It has to be reallocated most likely at the expense of instructional and non-instructional money.

    Someone pointed out how often part timers have stepped up to volunteer to do what needs to be done without compensation.

    Contract Inequity

    Someone pointed out an inequity in the contract. Part timers are required to do SLO, while that is not required in the full time contract. That's the kind of inequity that has to be addressed.Next Step

    The academic senate has to take a position for equity in compensation for service in shared governance committees. That has to be matched with action. There was a lot of support for ideas, less support when it comes to budget.

    The proposed action was to look at and mirror what Foothill was doing. There was a suggestion to look at what other community colleges are doing in compensating part-time instructors and their funding sources.

    Erik encouraged anyone that has thoughts, amendments, ideas, questions to reach out to Ishmael before the next meeting in two weeks.


    Equity Rubric
    Discussion

    Shaila Ramos-Garcia, Adriana Garcia, Felisa Vilaubi. The Equity Action Council (EAC) asked the Senate to recommend and support adopting this rubric. They were bringing the rubrics through the shared governance groups to get a campus wide agreement for using this equity rubric.

    The Senate has been talking about this topic for a couple of weeks.

    The conversation continued with more clarifying questions and thoughts.

    What type and what size events require submitting the equity rubric? Such as expected attendance of over 50.

    When the event is open to the entire campus. It is recommended, not required. 

    It would be helpful to have a checklist to determine if an event should use and submit the equity rubric.

    Would like an explanation or training on the rationale and process for the development of the equity rubric.

    How does the time frame and the workflow of the equity review fit into event planning? Some events, like club and village programs, have short planning time. Others are large events that could involve outside groups.

    Shaila Ramos-García: when someone submits their equity rubrics, the equity rubric committee makes assessments and gives recommendations on how to make it more equitable. They do not have the power to deny or cancel an event. They have not considered the attendance number to recommend using the rubrics.

    There was a concern over the workload and turn around time if every single event were to be reviewed by the committee. There are casual events like a coffee or tea at the villages where students drop in but are open to the campus.

    Discussion on the rubric review group membership

    It will be under EAC with some EAC members. They will invite others to join on a revolving basis. They will discuss and determine that at their first meeting.

    The Senate would like a firm idea of what the committee will look like, its charge and membership, before approving the rubrics.

    Motion

    Cynthia Kaufman moved to approve the rubrics with the suggested modification. Sherwin Mendoza seconded

    Discussion on the motion

    James Tallent does a lot of big events with companies and schools. He wanted clarification on questions like #2 in the rubric. Some of these actions take time. He suggested doing a mock trial to test it out.

    Adriana Garcia liked the idea of doing trial and error as they implement this rubric especially with community partners

    Senate members would like more instruction and guidance for filling out the rubric. 

    On slide 24 of the PDF presentation, there is a link to the 15-page document with all the background and information. Members were encouraged to read the document before the next meeting.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vZZglNEmGdj8occzEJkH4JC1j_Kr_WT0/edit

    There was a concern about how to determine the DEI policy for some community partners for the events.

    Adrianna: The rubrics is a starting point for bringing equity to De Anza and a sense of belonging to the students. It is an invitation to the marginalized and oppressed to participate equally. It makes the organizers consider equity and a safe environment in the event.

    There was definitely a need to remind community partners about the need for DEI and advocate for it.

    The Senate in general would endorse and approve of the work the EAC has done and the intentionality of the equity rubric, but requested some modifications and more details about the process part of the rubric before adopting it. They invited the group to come back for more discussion.

    Motion withdrew

    Cynthia Kaufman withdrew her motion.

    Adrianna took notes of the questions; will come back to address them.

    Discussion to be continued.


    Discussion of FW Grade Assignment
    • Use of FW vs F? Do we want both?
    • Requirements or guidance around Ws

    Erik Woodbury, Patty Guitron, James Adams, Nazy, and Lisa Mandy had a meeting last week to discuss this topic.

    Timeline
    • Week 2. Drop for non attendance. 
    • Week 3 to 9.  Withdraw with date of last attendance.
    • Week 9-12. FW with the last day of participation.
    Impact
    • Financial aid.  Attend at least 50% of one class.
    • F grade does not require the last day of attendance.
    • W grade requires last day of participation
    • F1 Visa. International students have to enroll in 12 units and earn grades for the 12 units to maintain Visa status. Failing grades qualify, W and FW do not qualify.
    • The Military is very strict. Veterans must attend and complete all classes,
    Options
    • Options 1. Do nothing, keep the current policy. The FW system is confusing. 
    • Option 2. Move the effective FW date to allow faculty to assign it earlier. Help with tracking but may affect some student population-Financial Aid, Visa/International and Military.
    • Option 3. Abolish FW, but F grade with required dates

     F grade has no last date of attendance attached.

    Options 2 and 3 will require work with the district to align with Foothill grading policy. The challenge will be to get a record of the last date of student participation.

    Motion

    Ishmael Tarikh moved to eliminate FW from De Anza grading policy. Mary Pape seconded

    2 abstain, motion passed


    Good of the Order

    Please review all report outs


    Adjournment

    Bob Singh motioned, Cynthia Kaufman seconded, to adjourn, no objection.


    Attendance
    In person

    Erik Woodbury, Patty Guitron, So Kam Lee

    Veronica Avila Acevedo, James Adams, Viviana Alcazar, *Sam Bliss, James Capurso, Umar Douglas, Mark Hamer, Kevin Glapion, Lauren Gordon, Rusty Johnson, Cynthia Kaufman, Shagun Kaur, Sherwin Mendoza, Lisa Mesh, Alicia Mullens, Mary Pape, Victor Pham, Christian Rodriguez, Jayanti Roy, Sukhjit Bob Singh, James Tallent, Ismael Tarikh, Lianna Wong

    Online

    Mary Donahue, Mark Landefeld, Ravjeet Singh

    Absent

    *Deborah Armstrong, Julie Hughes, Lakshmikanta "LK" Sengupta, Leah Smith, 

    *Non-voting members

Meeting URL: https://fhda-edu.zoom.us/j/84917035338?pwd=KSNLvkHZbQo36IWaqy9NGfCYLjbhRw.1

Meeting ID: 849 1703 5338
Passcode: 882827

Member   Remote Location   In District?  
Mary Donahue MLC 243, 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino, CA 95014 Yes
Ravjeet Singh F21-M, 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino, CA 95014 Yes
Mark Landefeld PE 51A, 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino, CA 95014 Yes

Back to Top