Notes - October 24, 2005

De Anza Academic Senate
Approved Notes for the meeting of
October 24, 2005

Senators and Officers present: Annen, Argyriou, Bryant, Chenoweth, Cordero, Dolen, Dunn, Fritz, Goodwin, Hearn, Jensen-Sullivan, Joplin, Kline, Logvinenko, Mjelde, Moreno, Mosh, Osborne, Setziol, Sheirich, Winters, and Zill
Senators and Officers absent: Capitolo, Dolen, Olsen, Raffaelli, and Zarecky
Classified Senate: Patlan
Administrative Liaison:
Guests: Karl Schaffer and Rich Wood

[NOTE: Item numbers are reflective of agenda numbers in the order they are actually taken up at the meeting.]

The meeting was called to order at 2:32, a quorum being present.

I. Approval of Agenda and Notes: The agenda was approved as distributed. The notes of the meeting of October 17th were approved as distributed with a pair of minor corrections.

II. Needs and Confirmations: None

III. Process for Selecting Division Senators: Hearn began by reiterating the proposed changes contained in the document distributed October 17th. After some preliminary discussion, Hearn asked whether or not a vote to put the proposed changes before the faculty at large. The answer was no, not at this time. A question was raised about the viability of a division process wherein people not responding could be counted as having voted affirmatively. Several people responded as to why that was not a good idea. Further discussion suggested that the absence of a process and the inconsistent application of agreed upon process were the two biggest problems. It was the sense of the Senate that having Part Time faculty represent divisions would be taken up as a separate and broader item focusing, in part, on the advisability and feasibility of stipends for part time faculty performing a variety of services.

IV. Bond Measure Planning: The item began innocently enough with Hearn presenting in a matter of fact manner. However, this tone was quickly undone by a stream of comments and questions revealing a general sense that, perhaps, going out for such a large bond at this time was unwise. In addition to a concern that the effort would fail, multiple speakers wondered aloud about what all the money would fund. When told about Measure E "cleanup" and funding a facility at NASA Ames, the group showed no appreciable warming to the idea. Since speculation was fueling the discussion, Jeanine Hawk will be invited to speak to the need for the bond.

V. S.O.S. Project Update: It was explained that, due to the vagaries of timing, an electronic mail message went out without Judy Miner having had the benefit of the Senate Executive Committee's ideas. Hearn announced that, as of the time of the meeting, 18 people had responded affirmatively to the message. Hearn and Miner agreed to mitigate against the potential for faculty (part time and probationary in particular) to feel obliged to participate.

VI. Professionalism and Collegiality on Campus: The focus of discussion was on establishing ground rules for and expected outcomes of deliberations. Hearn distributed two documents, one proposing ground rules and one probing individual member and attendee expectations of outcomes. Basically, those who commented could be grouped into three groups, one for whom the recitation of personal unfortunate stories was key to knowing the likely scope of problems, one for whom keeping the group's eyes on the prize means not getting bogged down with "He said she said" and debates as to what actually occurred in specific incidents likely in the recitation of personal experience, and one reserving judgement at this time. The officers shared several reasons why hearing individual stories and naming individuals were not good ideas. In addition, a concern about classified staff and a reminder about the importance of good shared definitions were well received.

VII. Academic Senate Orientation: In a very brief presentation, Setziol introduced the group to Title 5 and the Education Code and went over the legal, political, and practical differences between the two.

VIII. Topics for Future Orientation Presentations: In impromptu fashion, various Senators suggested topics such as raison d'etre, acronyms, governance in terms of faculty versus administration, and distinctions between the Faculty Association and the Senate. The officers had previously conjured up some themselves and will compare that list with the one generated at the meeting.

XI. Good of the Order:

  • The group was reminded that the action oriented companion to the textbook policy adopted last year has not yet made it on an agenda.
  • Hearn announced the Katrina disaster relief fundraiser would be November 1st and 2nd. However, just after she said that, the focus of the fund was called into question. Hearn will investigate and suggest changes as appropriate, perhaps by Wednesday, October 26th.
  • Colin Powell is due to be on campus November 9th. Protests are being planned by student groups.
  • Hearn directed the group's attention to a new section on the agenda listing future agenda items and pledged that items would not languish there.
  • The Joint Senates meeting will be October 31st at De Anza following a short De Anza Academic Senate meeting.
  • Faculty responsibilities under the new smoke free campus policy have not yet been set.
  • The accreditation visiting team presented four recommendations at the end of its visit. They referred to 1) Student Learning Outcomes, 2) written documentation of a professional code of ethics for classified staff, 3) Student Equity, and 4) technology enhanced learning.
  • Hearn will meet with Jensen-Sullivan in the next few days to plan agenda items pertaining to environmental sustainability.
  • The issue of pay for substitutes will require a discussion at the next FA/Senates Liaison Group meeting.
  • Candidates for the Board of Trustees vacancies may be coming to a future Senate meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:40.

Back to Top