General Meeting Information

Date: October 29, 2018
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Location: Foothill Campus, Toyon Room 2020

Joint Meeting with Foothill at FH Toyon Room 2020 to discuss ASCCC Fall Plenary Resolutions

  • Agenda

    Item Attachements Actions Speaker Objective Outcome
    Call to Order     Officers  
    Roll Call     Officers  
    Adoption of agenda   Action    
    Public comment on items    None Public Members of the public may address the senate re: items not on the agenda
    Approval of minutes  


    De Anza Senate

    New Business (10+1 area(s) indicated)        
    Fall 2018 Plenary Resolutions ResolutionsPacket-F18-Thursday-final Discussion/ Officers Reps will discuss current resolutions to be considered at ASCCC Fall Plenary
    Announcements (limited to 3 minutes, Senate cannot take action)   Information General/Public  

    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information


    • ResolutionsPacket-F18-Thursday-final

    The 10+1

    1. Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites
    2. Degree and certificate requirements
    3. Grading policies
    4. Educational program development
    5. Standards or policies regarding student preparation and success
    6. College governance structures, as related to faculty roles
    7. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes
    8. Policies for faculty professional development activities
    9. Policies for program review
    10. Processes for institutional planning and budget development
    11. Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon
  • Minutes

    Meeting Minutes

     Joint Foothill & De Anza Academic Senates Meeting

    2:00-4:00 PM, Foothill Toyon Room 2020

    De Anza Attendance:
    1. Karen Chow
    2. Alicia De Toro
    3. Mary Donahue
    4. Kevin Glapion
    5. Anita Vazifdar
    6. My Linh Pham
    7. Tom Dolen
    8. Dawn Lee Tu

    Minutes from Oct. 22 meeting were not approved because a quorum was not present

    Discussion of ASCCC Resolutions (version for discussion at Fall 2018 Plenary on Thursday, November 1):  Number refers to Resolution number in the packet:


    Discussion-Is this the OEI? No. This is for the fully online 115th California Community College.

    Request for modification: add an addition to the Whereas ...the Senate not supporting the online college itself...even though we didn’t support the creation of the online college, faculty would like representation as the Academic Senate for the fully online college until the local faculty can be represented…. - Issac said he could work on integrating the wording into one of the existing whereas’s (maybe first whereas)

    Mary Donahue- motion to approve 1.01 as amended - approved by the majority

    Point of order- David Marasco (FH) [seconded by Mary D] when the proposed amendment it may get voted down so vote on the resolution without amendment.

    Unamended 1.01- also approved by the body


    Kathryn Mauer (FH) asked- What is a FON?  FON = Faculty Obligation Number, which is the minimum requirement for hired full time faculty to part time faculty ratio in the district.  

    This resolution could work either in favor or against intention depending on how many part-time and full-timers are non-credit. 

    More information is needed…..will this impact us negatively financially? Currently, the district has met the FON.

    Will consult with Vice Chancellor of Finance.   If the result indicates a negative impact then we will vote against.


    Why “multiple measures” and “GPA?” 

    This may be coming from the state AS representation….mulitple measures could be that there is a hs overall GPA, there is a 12 or 11th course grade….it is being parsed that the GPA isn’t just overall, but could be specific grades (grade based) - Carolyn said it makes sense when explained, but it doesn’t seem to say that. 

    Is everyone in the body in agreement that only grades (GPA) be considered? Or do we want more than just GPA? 

    Amendment to include institutional research?

    The body of Senators agreed to support “yes,” to overall spirit of this resolution.


    This is about information gathering and procedure- Issac

    No one raised their hand when Issac asked who would not support it….so, by lack of disapproval, body seems to approve.


    Kathryn M- Cool committee discussed this for many meetings….just getting to a formal recommendation from that committee, but then there was a new governance structure (?), no formal recommendation, but they decided that the OEI rubric is a pretty high standard. Foothill decided to use local rubrics to build upon toward quality assessment. 

    A Foothill Senator registered their position Against: why are we creating a standard rubric for online classes if we don’t have one for our live classes….

    Issac- this could be a helpful resolution for campuses who are not currently teaching online like FHDA.

    Karen- If this resolution passes, then Issac and I can bring it back to our local senates for discussion and possible action of approval if the senators vote this up.

    Carolyn- Union should be involved asap

    In general, any opposition to amended resolution- no opposition

    Added resolve- how do we feel about the second part…..

    David M - would feel comfortable with the removal of “online,” Issac stated that would alter the spirit of the resolution.

    Kathryn  M- I would support the amendment without the added resolve (motion to vote without amendment, seconded by David M). majority support


    Move to support (lady next to Mary D- Sara)- Mary D seconded. Amendment

    David M- motioned, Sara seconded

    Approved (Amended and Original)


    David M- in support

    Lots of support reported in feedback - Sara

    Kathryn M- Would like to understand better the wording in the first resolve re: “urge local AS”

    Karen- DA Academic Senate has already approved forming a DA Academic Senate Taskforce on Course Scheduling and Enrollment Management. Maybe we also need a district enrollment committee.


    Could a guided self-placement help with students who don’t meet with the counselor? 

    Discussion resulted in general support for guided self-placement process for students, but counselors expressed concern that they wouldn’t desire to see students skip counselor advising on placement.

Documents and Links

Back to Top