Joint Meeting of Foothill and De Anza Academic Senates

Quorum and Call to Order 

Meeting called to order by Dolores Davison. 

Public Comment

• Property Tax Revenue and Commercial Property Tax Appeal: Mark Landefeld  encouraged colleagues to engage in conversations about property tax revenue, particularly the impact of large commercial property owners appealing property tax assessments and delaying payments. He raised questions about the effects on K–12 districts and the Foothill–De Anza Community College District, including whether delayed revenue would eventually be recovered. He noted that this issue could become a growing political concern, while acknowledging that companies such as Apple and Google may not necessarily be acting in bad faith.

• Six-Unit Waiver for Students: Yolanda Johnson brought attention to a proposal under consideration at the District concerning a six-unit waiver that students can apply for in connection with obtaining AB 540 status. She noted that the proposal would be forwarded to the Chancellor’s Advisory Board and emphasized its importance in supporting vulnerable students’ access to college. The matter had also been brought to the De Anza Associated Student Government (DASG).

Chancellor’s Updates

Vice Chancellor Gohar Momjian provided an overview of the District’s mission, vision, governance priorities, funding model, and strategic direction. Highlights included: 

• Mission, Vision, and Shared Governance: G Momjian discussed the district’s mission and vision. G Momjian acknowledged the importance of the academic senates’ role under the 10+1 and thanked Senate leadership for helping advance policies and procedures, including those related to Credit for Prior Learning (CPL), course repetition, and course completion. Some policies had not been updated in approximately 20 years. This work was characterized as part of a broader effort to build institutional culture. G Momjian also identified the need to update Board policies and administrative procedures, referencing the Academic and Professional Matters Committee as part of this work.
• Community-Supported Funding Model: G Momjian described the funding approach centered on an empowered model. The anticipated progression includes-

• • Transition period

• • Gradual development

• • Greater flexibility and freedom

• • Long-term sustainability and stewardship
• External Forces Reshaping Higher Education: G Momjian identified four major forces affecting higher education simultaneously-

• • Demographic: Declining birth rates

• • Economic: Questions regarding the return on investment of higher education

• • Technological: Rapid technological change

• • Social: Changes in the cultural value placed on higher education.
• Five Foundational Practices: G Momjian outlined five foundational practices intended to build the infrastructure for a future-ready institution - 

• • Empowered Governance and Institutional Agility

• • Strategic Finance and Talent Innovation

• • Partnerships for Impact

• • Sustainability and Resilience as Core Design Principles

• • Culture of Trust, Inclusion, and Courageous Engagement
• Five Strategic Priorities: The District’s five strategic priorities were presented as follows - 

• • Equity by Design, Empower Every Learner for Impact

• • Learning, Innovation, and Liberal Arts Education

• • Digital Transformation and AI Readiness: Build a Human-Centered Tech Future

• • Career Pathways and Economic Opportunities

• • Global Citizenship and Civic Innovation

Discussion on Accessibility Workgroup

Tiffany Rideaux asked about the District’s accessibility workgroup. G Momjian explained that a workgroup had been established near the end of the Spring term. The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office accessibility team is expected to participate in a voluntary accessibility audit at the District during the upcoming winter term.

D Davison provided additional context, noting that accessibility requirements were not new and that implementation guidelines originally expected to take effect the previous April had been delayed by another year. During the additional year, the District began discussing what accessibility compliance would require across the institution. A joint Opening Day meeting included staff responsible for accessibility, and the workgroup subsequently expanded. D Davison explained that the planned audit would last approximately two days and would examine the District more broadly, including websites and institutional practices. It would not focus on individual faculty courses.

T Rideaux asked how specific faculty and departments needed to be in their accessibility efforts. Ben Kaupp shared prior industry experience knowledge that there may be individuals who identify ADA violations and schools and companies to bring lawsuits. Recognized that implementation is a learning process. The participant noted that accessible content benefits a broad range of users.

Jordan Fong emphasized the responsibility of colleagues to hold one another accountable and referenced available training and workshops. A representative from Community Education noted that the department has a small faculty group of approximately seven members and expressed interest in viewing accessibility efforts as an opportunity for expansion.

Resolutions Discussion

Reviewed the resolution timeline and discussed potential changes and areas requiring further consideration. Participants noted that many resolutions would have implications for both colleges.

Resolution 105.01 F26 – In-Person Assessments for Classes

Michele Fritz expressed strong support for the resolution, citing the need to protect academic integrity. She raised the possibility of establishing an assessment center or exchange to support in-person assessments and described concerns related to online assessments. Alicia Mullens cautioned that requiring in-person assessments could significantly affect some departments, particularly smaller departments, as online classes may be a draw for students. D Davison added that departments do not have consistent language regarding assessment practices.

B Kaupp questioned whether the legislature was the appropriate body to determine assessment requirements for colleges. He referenced concerns raised by the CSU Math Council regarding online assessments and the potential for ongoing disagreement between institutions over the acceptance of courses.

Erik Woodbury asked whether a change to Title 5 might be a possible alternative. D Davison noted that requirements for some STEM courses at the CSU and UC levels may involve online laboratories, adding complexity to the issue. E Woodbury noted that participants could suggest amendments. D Davison also indicated that participants could propose changes through the resolution process.

Resolution 110.02 F26 – Faculty Consultation on the Use of Categorical Funds and Block Grants With Local Flexibility

T Rideaux highlighted the importance of faculty consultation regarding categorical funding. She noted that block grants intended to support students may not be widely known among faculty and that information about available funds had reached her through a message from the Chancellor’s Office. She expressed interest in ensuring faculty have opportunities to learn about funding and participate in decisions regarding its use.

Resolution 110.04 F26 – Community College Reserve Policies and Faculty Participation in Budget Development

T Rideaux also highlighted the importance of this resolution in light of the District’s transition to a basic-aid funding model. Emphasized the value of providing faculty with as much input as possible into institutional budget development and reserve policies.

Other Resolution Discussions

E Woodbury and Voltaire Villanueva discuss the importance of faculty input and perspective on resolutions. D Davison raised the topic of baccalaureate degrees. Voltaire questioned the potential long-term implications of accelerated baccalaureate degrees, including how decisions made now might affect colleges five or ten years in the future. Voltaire compared these concerns with the longer-term implications of earlier changes such as AB 705 and AB 1705.

Shagun Kaur asked whether Mathematics faculty were aware of the mathematics-related resolutions. Doli Bambhania indicated that she would email E Woodbury and S Kaur.

Resolution 105.02 F26 – Supporting Accessibility of Discipline-Specific and Specialized Instructional Content

D Davison expressed appreciation for the resolution’s rationale but felt that the resolve statements were incomplete. She noted that the resolution called for shared resources and systemwide sustainability but did not adequately address faculty time, effort, or the need for sustainable resources.

Resolution 114.02 F26 – Reactivating the CCCCO Library and Learning Resources Program Advisory Committee (LLRPAC)

The resolution was identified as acceptable for the consent calendar unless a participant wished to discuss it further. Dolores explained that resolutions considered noncontroversial could be placed on the consent calendar.

Upcoming Policy and Governance Topics

The following issues were identified for future discussion or continued work:

• Online v. in-person assessment proctoring: Discussion of proctoring for online classes will continue.

• Equivalency: Board policy related to equivalency is forthcoming.

• Academic freedom and freedom of speech: Participants discussed developing a separate policy with linked procedures.
• Professional Relations Committee: E Woodbury noted that the committee’s structure and role differ across the colleges. De Anza had identified a potential need for a committee to help resolve interfaculty disputes, in contrast to FA’s general focus on mediating between faculty and administrators. E Woodbury suggested that a districtwide committee might be worth considering to avoid conflicts of interest. 

Adjournment

De Anza Academic Senate Meeting

Quorum and Call to Order 

Meeting called to order by Erik Woodbury. 

Agenda Updates: E Woodbury noted that the presentation on new library services would be removed from the agenda for today and rescheduled for a future meeting.

Public Comment

E Woodbury expressed appreciation to those who traveled to Foothill College and those who participated remotely. The group acknowledged the value of their efforts and participation.

Committee Needs and Recruitment

Shagun Kaur provided updates on faculty representation and committee recruitment needs.

• Time Block Scheduling Task Force: Faculty representatives are needed from Lab Sciences and Counseling. Members were encouraged to reach out to their constituent groups to identify potential representatives. S Kaur noted that delayed responses make it more difficult to fill these positions.

• Leadership Assessment Steering Committee: Members are needed for a group being formed to review the assessment report, identify specific actions, and help shape the 90-day plan.

• Request to Serve Form: Faculty interested in serving on committees should submit the form by Thursday at 5:00 p.m. Timely submissions are needed to prepare for the following week's agenda.

Library Services and Resources

E Woodbury invited feedback on the new library services. Mary Donahue announced that the library provides free access to the San Jose Mercury News and the San Francisco Chronicle. S Kaur noted that updated library orientation videos would be beneficial. Veronica Avila Acevedo reminded faculty that books can be placed on reserve for classroom use and encouraged faculty to contact the library's front desk for assistance.

Low-Cost Textbook Resolution

The Senate discussed a resolution to change De Anza College's definition of a low-cost textbook from $50 to $30 to align with state reporting requirements and the California Virtual Campus (CVC) Exchange.

Mary Pape asked when the change would take effect, noting that the college already had agreements with some publishers. S Kaur explained that implementation could proceed quickly and that the college would report the $30 threshold to the state beginning with the required reporting period. E Woodbury clarified that the new definition would take effect upon adoption and that the state would require reporting at the $30 threshold by summer.

S Kaur explained that retaining the $50 threshold locally would require collecting two sets of data. The CVC Exchange would not accept the $50 threshold; Foothill College was also using $30, and the college would be required to report the $30 threshold to the state. Maintaining the $50 threshold separately would require additional manual data collection. S Kaur also noted that De Anza was among the last colleges to move to the $30 threshold. M Landefeld raised a question about whether publishers would also be required to adjust their practices.

V Avila Acevedo motioned to approve the resolution to change the low-cost textbook threshold from $50 to $30. Seconded by Michele Fritz. The motion passed unanimously, with no objections. 

Good of the Order

M Fritz asked about faculty submitting amendments to ASCCC resolutions and will consult E Woodbury for guidance on the process. Amendments require support from five delegate seconders.

Angelica Esquivel-Moreno shared that they, along with Cynthia Kaufman co-authored an open educational resource (OER) textbook titled Introduction to Community Organizing, which is being used by colleagues in Chicago.

Adjournment