Notes - November 21, 2005

De Anza Academic Senate
Approved Notes for the meeting of
November 21, 2005

Senators and Officers present Annen, Argyriou, Bresnan, Bryant, Capitolo, Chenoweth, Cordero, Dolen, Dunn, Fox, Fritz, Goodwin, Hearn, Jensen-Sullivan, Joplin, Kline, Logvinenko, Mjelde, Moreno, Mosh, Olsen, Osborne, Raffaelli, Setziol, Sheirich, Winters, and Zill
Senators and Officers absent: Zarecky
DASB: Saleha Pirzada
Classified Senate:
Administrative Liaison:
Guests: Bob Barr, Jeanine Hawk, Dan Mitchell, Ed Quevedo, and Karl Schaffer

[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 with the addition of an Item VIb: Graduation Day and the renumbering of the printed Item VI as VIa.

The notes of the meeting of November 7th were approved as distributed with the addition of material about Ben Kline's Fall Session experience read aloud by Hearn and with a clarification that, with regard to Item 7, "Dolen's main concern was about the process whereby instructional equipment money accumulated unspent." The notes of the meeting of November 14th were approved as distributed.

III. Public Domain/Open Source Survey: Bob Barr, Director of Institutional Research for the District, was present to distribute and solicit feedback about a draft of a Public Domain/Open Source Survey of faculty. The Foothill Academic Senate has already interacted with Barr about the survey. There were several general questions and specific questions and comments about two of the items. Barr invited suggestions for change and expects something about at least item two.

Several basic questions arose with regard to copyright and were answered confidently.

A question was also raised about Open Source, Courseware, etc. and why the survey did not address those. The response was that the Joint Development Group, in its initial discussion of the general topic (things within the topic all promising to reduce cost to students by reducing the use of current textbooks) decided that the issue of public domain was clearly separable from the rest and could be pursued more simply and sooner than the rest. In addition, Saleha Pirzada, representing the students, suggested that student input might be valuable.

The item will return November 28th.

II. Needs and Confirmations: After some confusion about an earlier confirmation, Rowena Tomaneng was confirmed for service on the Mary Alice Bonilla Tenure Review Committee replacing Suzanne Helfman. It was noted that gender and discipline balance were maintained with this replacement.

IV. Environmental Sustainability: Ed Quevedo addressed the group for a second time, the first time having been in the 2004-2005 academic year. He began by urging the group to think big, to think in terms of designing the future direction of the college in a fundamental, structural way by incorporating environmental sustainability into a college strategic plan and acting on that plan. He reminded he group about the points within the Talloires Declaration, showed its points in a visual presentation, and renewed his plea that the college commit to the points within that declaration.

He went on to observe that the college could still become the first in the area to move significantly in this area and what an opportunity it was to enhance the reputation of the college among members of the public and potential students. It might even be possible for the college to make money by offering its services in the area to institutions large and small. He then outlined a significant list of internal and external considerations, problems, and potential benefits.

Throughout his address, Quevedo stressed the importance of action and prioritization. Setziol expressed a concern about the status of the College Environmental Advisory Group in terms of it being only indirectly and somewhat informally related to the college governance structure. Quevedo agreed and said that the group might be made more official and that he would urge the Senate to have a separate subcommittee to address academic issues related to this subject. Senate subcommittee.

VIa. Pacific Graduate School of Psychology Baccalaureate: After considerable discussion, it was clear that the group was of two minds. One mind was more or less comfortable with the presentations by Hearn and Miner and ready to approve with the understandings that A) This was to be a pilot program and, therefore, constituted no long term effect on the college and B) That the college, advised by the Academic Senate could and would cancel the program under the 60 day provisions of the tentative contract. The other mind was uncomfortable moving forward to final approval on the basis of something presented more as an agreement in principle rather than a fully documented contractual agreement. It did not help this mind that only one of the two parties involved in the contract was presenting, thereby leaving as an open question whether or not the other side would have given the same assurances, etc. The item was to return accompanied by more documentation.

[Note: After the meeting, one of the required conditions (WASC accreditation) failed to materialize, thereby making action at this time moot. Also, the officers realized that they could have distributed copies of the contract at or prior to the November 14th or 21st meetings thereby providing at least some of the documentation requested at the November 21st meeting.]

VIb. Graduation Date: Hearn asked the group whether or not it might approve of a request to move the 2005-2006 graduation celebration one week earlier. Initial responses were positive.

Saleha Pirzada, representing the students, asked that she be given one week to get at least a sample of student response.

VII. Bond Measure Planning: Jeanine Hawk distributed and carefully explicated a document representing the thinking so far as to how money raised would be spent. She mentioned three possible dates for putting the bond to local voters, June 2006, November, 2006, and June 2007 and gave plausible reasons for the first two for the three in terms of optimum timing. There were many questions including environmental sustainability, Part time office space, distribution of money between the two colleges, etc. At 4:30 it was MSC (Winters/Sheirich) to extend the time of discussion for ten minutes. Questions continued including those concerning a multicultural center (not previously mentioned) and the transit center envisioned with but then dropped from Measure E. The lack of what was characterized as a Marquee facility was noted.

Hawk made it clear that the list was preliminary, that anyone could suggest anything, and that environmental sustainability, rather than being a line item would be integral.

VIII. Good of the Order: Hearn reminded the group that the deadline for supporting a Hayward Award nominee (a necessary condition for a nomination to proceed) is November 28th.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:42.

Back to Top