General Meeting Information

Date: November 8, 2021
Time: 2:30 - 4:20 p.m.
Location: Zoom

  • Agenda

    Time Topic Purpose Discussion Leader


    (representatives who have not updated their report-out and wish to, please do so)

    D All
    2:35-2:40 Approval of Agenda, Minutes from Oct. 25, 2021, and Minutes the the Joint FH+DA meeting Nov. 1, 2021 I/D/A Balm, Lee

    Public Comment on Items Not On Agenda

    (Senate cannot discuss or take action)

    I All

    Needs and Confirmations

    Summary Details

    I/D/A Pape

    Role of Senate in Approving Proctoring Software for Purchase and Implementation - Continuation from Oct. 25, 2021


    Balm, All
    3:35-4:05 AP 4130 - Hiring Procedures


    Balm, All
    4:05-4:20 Report-outs and Good of the Order: Continuing to use the new interactive system for written and verbal reports and conversations from around the college I/D All

    To request to add an item to the agenda of a future Academic Senate meeting, email by noon on the Wednesday before.

    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information

  • Minutes [DRAFT]


    Cheryl reminded representatives to update their report-out.

    Approval of Agenda, Minutes from Oct. 25, 2021, and Minutes from the Joint FH+DA meeting Nov. 1, 2021

    • Bob moved, Mary P seconded to approve both minutes and agenda. No objection.
    • Agenda and minutes approved by unanimous consent.

    Public Comment on items not on agenda (Senate cannot discuss or take action)

    Mark: Kinesiology and Athletics have been discussing ways to update course schedule, expectations, and requirements that could vary throughout the year. They have used footnotes internally. Globally, they would like to explore the possibility of having a hyperlink to faculty web pages in the schedule of classes for students to preview before enrolling in a class. That would allow faculty to update information on a regular basis.

    Mary D followed with an encouragement to faculty to get and set up their websites. 

    Lydia clarified that hyperlink will be from the registration banner to the faculty webpage.

    Needs and Confirmation
    Summary Details

    Instructional Faculty member to serve on SSPBT
    There is a need for an instructional faculty member to serve on the Student Services Planning and Budget Team. 
    The following faculty from Student Services were confirmed on June 7, 2021:
    Hyon Chu Yi-Baker, Student Services Office of College Life, Full-time Tenured
    Kevin M. Glapion, DSPS Division, DSS, Full-time Tenured
    An instructional faculty member is needed to fill the third seat

    Robert Alexander, Counseling, Full-time Tenured
    Melinda motioned, Mary D seconded to confirm Robert Alexander for the third position. No objection. Unanimous consent

    Faculty needed to serve on the FA Equity Task Force Evaluations Workgroup.
    Cheryl Balm was confirmed for this position on May 10, 2021 prior to being elected to be the Senate President. Her meetings as Senate President conflicted with the Task Force meetings. 
    Applications due by November 23.

    Nominations for the ASCCC Hayward Award for "Excellence in Education"
    Hayward Award. Each local senate can nominate one full- and part- time faculty member; however there can only be one honoree from each college. More information in the Report-out and the Academic Senate Weekly Newsletter.
    Nominations due by noon Tues, Nov 23.

    Role of Senate in Approving Proctoring Software for Purchase and Implementation - Continuation from Oct. 25, 2021

    Input document for gathering concerns and data

    Cheryl created the editable document with items verbally discussed in the October 25 meeting. Those items are listed in bold italics. The intent was to collect more input and information. Everyone in the meeting, senate executive members, associate members, and guests were invited to add, to comment, share links, and share documents on the editable document. 

    Cheryl shared the analogy of cleaning out the closet. Get everything out to determine what is useful, what needs repair, what has to go. Share and discuss in a collegial, kind, and respectful manner. They may use verbal conversation, chat, and the document.

    The document is organized under headings:
    Academic Freedom, Equity & Disproportionate Impact, Academic Integrity and Student Readiness, Alternatives to Software, Technical Issues, Cost & Purview, and DA College Reputation.

    In the spirit of being heard and not attacking anyone, Dawn opened up breakout rooms for people to work together or privately. People may choose to stay in the main room for general discussion. They also had the option of moving in and out of the breakrooms. Private messaging was enabled in chat.

    People were reminded of the agenda topic: to discuss the Academic Senate’s role in approving proctoring software for purchase and implementation.

    Byron acknowledged how temperatures and opinions may run high on this topic and the challenge for people to rise to the challenge of listening to each other with respect. It is a challenging decision with pros and cons on both sides. He hoped the Senate will see the tool not as flawed as suggested and can defer its use to an individual faculty, department, or division decision.

    Lee in chat: Can someone clarify which proctoring software we are considering?

    The software has not been established. De Anza has had Proctorio. The software was brought in and terminated without faculty and Senate input. The agenda item for Senate discussion was on proctoring software.

    Michele Fritz in chat: There are several alternatives;  Honorlock, Respondus, Proctorio...

    Lydia: First, on Bryon’s suggestion regarding individual and separate decisions to use the software. Some software must be turned on for the whole campus and not just parts of the campus. Second, The software was given free to the college at first, later, there was a charge. There was an administrative decision to discontinue its use because of the cost. Third, Lydia has put into the IPBT under Academic Services Learning Resource an item request for proctoring software $50,000/year. It has not been approved.

    Michele Fritz in chat: Proctorio is quite expensive because they charge based on the number of professors at the school.  Honorlock charges $8 per student per year.  Respondus also has per-use pricing.

    Lydia in chat: If (and which) software is chosen, it needs to include a vetting of whether the software meets all the required parameters such as ADA accessibility compliance, etc. Typically the Online Advisory Group does that type of work with other types of software that goes through Online Education.

    Lisa asked for clarification on the purpose or goal of the conversation. The role of the Senate in determining the use of Proctorio, proctoring in general, or the role in determining software.

    Rick: The original question was not which software to use, but if it was the role of the senate to decide if the campus should use one.

    That was the original ask. However, it brought up other issues like academic integrity and equity. For example, there would not be any problem with adopting software like Microsoft Office.

    Shagun: the biggest issue and one that the Senate body should decide is faculty purview and control and ownership of their classroom space. This absolutely includes their assessment choices. The discussion on whether Proctorio or other equitable assessment tools or authentic assessment should happen at the discipline level. Faculty should have purview and control over their classroom, teaching methodology, and pedagogy. The Senate should support our faculty colleagues on the choices they have made for their classrooms. The second issue is the availability of Proctorio. Faculty who have used Proctorio when it was available were being unfairly punished when it was no longer available due to funding. Those faculty have spent time, effort and energy learning it, and then teaching it to their students.  They become tech support on top of being faculty. It was unfair to ask them to switch gears without providing the support needed to make that switch.

    Shagun: The Senate has never made a decision, or a task force or a set of rubrics or guidelines in terms of how to adopt technology to be used in the classroom, beyond what is available, what is being introduced and what is free.

    Clarifying comments from Cheryl. She expressed concern and hoped that no one felt punished. The Senate did vett and had a task force to adopt Canvas when they switched the learning management system. Such a task force and investigation did not happen with Proctorio because of the pandemic.

    Shagun Kaur in chat: Thanked Cheryl for clarifying. We do not have a rubric or measure when it comes to the external tools/software we use in our classroom spaces. For example a simple rubric like this if adopted at least would give faculty a framework to assess before adopting a tool.

    Shannon spoke on behalf of the faculty in the Nursing Department. They faced many challenges teaching online, especially giving exams.  Using Proctorio has helped her tremendously and has relieved her anxiety. Not having it is really hard because students are cheating. Students are finishing exams in five minutes which is not possible with critical thinking questions. It is very disheartening. Students are looking at other things on their computers, talking on their phones, compiling questions, and passing them to other students.  They need something to help instructors to teach and give exams online.

    Cheryl acknowledged the heartbreak many are feeling with their inability to assess students with or without software. Educators don’t want to police students or to be cheated on. Faculty are all passionate about their disciplines and do their best to authentically teach and evaluate students through these methods at this time. There is hope in going back to the classroom and establishing human contacts.

    Comment from chat: I wonder if we could also talk about the student perspective and using these programs. I wonder if this type of software is sending a particular message to students about how we consider their own integrity.

    Michelle F did use Proctorio when it was available. Students may feel uncomfortable being videotaped while taking an exam. They may think that the teacher doesn't trust them. It is similar to using turnitin for papers. Students can cheat even when the faculty watch over them during a test on campus. She used the tool all year and students accepted it. Faculty offered alternatives for students uncomfortable with the system. No one opted for the alternative. Proctorio was an essential tool for her, mostly as a deterrent.

    Ron Kleinman in chat: On campus sections have instructor proctored midterms and finals. Not using online proctoring tools, would be a disservice to students taking on campus sections.

    Rose Mallari in chat: No one in her class complained about Proctorio. They understood the need to use it.

    Victor Yu in chat: If monitoring students in the physical classroom is a norm, why would using software make any difference?

    Cheryl shared her conversation with Heidi who pointed out some difference between Turnitin and Proctorio. Turnitin has an administrative dashboard that offers some measure of control. One can add features, problem solve issues, and adjust settings.

    Jason: Academic freedom is very important. Faculty know their classes better than anyone. It should be their prerogative on how they do their assessment. With regard to student perspective, he took surveys each quarter and included questions about Proctorio in the last few quarters.  In those surveys 85% of students did not have a problem with Proctorio. 15% did not like it and did not want to use it. A task force would be good for a long term solution that the campus could support and be united on. There should be a short term solution, as soon as possible, for those instructors that need it. He volunteered to serve on the task force.

    Erik: On the question, what message does this send to students? It is very unfortunate that students have demonstrated that they are willing and able to cheat. Over the past year, he has regularly turned in a third of his students for cheating. The message to students should be that cheating is socially unacceptable. The message is: cheating is a problem, it is hurting us, and we don’t know how to fix it.

    Bob: It would help if instructors were allowed to know if their incident reports resulted in any action that might be seen as a deterrent to cheating.

    Lydia appreciated the thoughtful, robust, and rigorous conversation. There must be agreement on the software. The cost and the capacity of the online education office would allow them to support only one piece of software. There is an established online advisory group that vets software being used widely on campus.
    She was not sure if Proctorio would meet all the criteria and requirements set by the college, like accessibility, etc.

    Manisha Karia in chat: Tools like Honorlock are ADA accessible and compliant with Section 508. This tool is also fully compliant with FERPA regulation.

    Jennifer Parrish in chat: I have to give exams in my discipline because students will need to take exams to get a job in industry. 

    Maureen Miramontes in chat: My Health Tech students will be taking their state boards with proctoring software. It is my job to make sure they are comfortable using such tools. The training must begin in the classroom.

    Susan: On 10+1, grading is clearly one of those areas within Academic Senate purview to make recommendations. She had two concerns. First is a faculty concern, Academic Freedom. No one should tell a faculty what they can or cannot do in their classroom. Recommendations for software, test, assessment program and grading could be a slippery slope that erodes academic freedom. In terms of student consideration, people have raised equity concerns regarding proctoring software. It is the role of the Senate to protect academic freedom and equity concerns in making recommendations for software decisions for the campus.

    Mary D mentioned her Red Cross First Aid Certification class where most students were preparing to be health care professionals. Last year, she was directed to a web page where she found all her test questions and answers. She had to rewrite all her questions. She was very disappointed. While most students do take the class seriously, some people can pay someone to take class and write papers. Students do cheat and can cheat more effectively if they have the resources.

    Jennifer: Exam grades should not be based on who had access to the best resources and/or the money for tutors. There are a plethora of online services like Chegg who make the process of finding a tutor to take your exam easy. On these sites, tutors are available 24 hours a day to solve problems for a fee. Students who can afford to do so, can pay tutors to take their exams. Less privileged students cannot. Moreover, honest students should not feel compelled to cheat in order to be competitive with their classmates.

    Emily Garbe in chat: $40 per paper. There are many bidding systems out there.

    Michele Fritz in chat: Sharing sites facilitate cheating.  But students also share exam questions with each other.  It helps if the software can prevent copy/paste or printing.

    Ishmael did not see a significant academic freedom issue. Faculty is not required to use a particular software if it is adopted. It would be alarming if instructors were required to use a particular software. Just like instructors are not required to use turnitin.  However, he considered equity a serious concern. On the topic of cheating, it has increased to a rampant level. He noticed a serious problem from his position on the student judicial conduct hearing panel. We need to send a strong message to everyone; that it is not profitable to look the other way, when a significant number of students are engaged in academic dishonesty. Academic integrity should be preserved in this institution. Equity is important; but there is no equity issue when it comes to cheating. Send a message as an institution that we want education to have true value.

    Clare Nguyen in chat: As an institution, academic integrity should be encouraged and the message should be clear to students and instructors.

    Susan in chat: Academic integrity may not be an equity issue but the tool we choose must be equitable.  Proctorio has issues with recognizing/tracking Black faces…Her concerns are whether the actual tool is equitable.

    Shagun wanted to remind everyone that the reason for debating this issue is because the software is not free. If it were free, everyone may use it or not as they deem fit. The cost involved necessitated the debate on whether enough people would use it to justify the cost. Also, who gets to decide whether it is worth it or not. 

    Cheryl respectfully disagreed. It is not all about money, nor a budgetary issue. This could be grounds for further discussion.

    Bryon: School is hard, college is hard. Many students work. Some work full time and try to be full time students. Make it a little harder for them to cheat so that there is no alternative but to be engaged with the material.

    Emily, Anthology: SSH has expressed concerns over the technical issues with Proctorio that link back to equity and accessibility. Students living in multi-generational households with people coming in and out of the room while taking test; students with different levels of melanin in their skin being perceived differently by the technology of that particular software. Cheating is demoralizing. Faculty have to change the way they teach and assess learning. It is frustrating and challenging to do the right thing. 

    Mark Landefeld in chat: Do other products address the Equity issue?

    Kevin referred to the best practices for testing and alternative assessment methods discussed last spring. There has been online testing before the pandemic. Most did not have any proctoring devices. He would like to know the percentage of instructors that wanted to use Proctorio or felt the need to use it. He mentioned instructional design and wondered if instructors knew how to maximize the internal built in test security features in Canvas.

    Michele Fritz in chat: Canvas has no test security features.  The Canvas docs expressly say not to use the logging for cheating.

    ​​Lauren Gordon in chat: curricular design can also limit the amount of cheating. 

    Jennifer Parrish in chat: Campus, public libraries, coffee shops, parks, etc have opened up, students who do not want an instructor to see their living situation during the exam recordings can find a neutral location to take their exams. A constructive approach to the problem would be to open empty classrooms on campus to test-takers so they have a quiet place to take exams.

    Rose Mallari in chat: Students are given the requirements for remote proctoring.  They should have plenty of time to prepare..find a place to take the exam in a well lighted room.

    Bob Kalpin in chat: I gave students access to a practice Proctorio exam so they can become accustomed and resolve problems beforehand. After that there were zero complaints.

    Emily Garbe in chat: Zoom proctoring is significantly more intrusive than a proctoring software. Students cannot see other students taking tests with proctoring software. I have heard from students who like Proctorio because they feel less anxious rather than having the entire class see them taking tests.

    From chat at the end of discussion
    Byron Lilly: I came prepared to give this presentation today, which in part challenges certain assertions about Proctorio's behavior when students have darker complexions, and about how "wonderful" and easy it is to use "authentic assessment" instead.

    Jennifer Parrish: Not all students with dark skin tones have had problems. I spoke with a student of color with a dark skin tone a couple of weeks ago about whether he had ever had any problems with Proctorio and he said that he had not.

    Susan Thomas: Skin tone identification is not the only equity concern when it comes to online proctoring). See this article on online Proctoring & Equity:

    From T. Lee: Another item to consider about online proctoring:

    Jason Bram: Settings in Proctorio, and in other exam support software, can easily be adjusted to address some of the equity issues.  For example, you can set up Proctorio to allow students to get back into an exam if they are kicked out for whatever reason.  I've never had a student get kicked out of an exam where they couldn't easily get back in.  And I've never personally had any issues with skin colors having any sort of impact with Proctorio.

    Clare Nguyen: I've had multiple students with various skin tones and no one has had a problem with Proctorio in all my classes last year.

    Jennifer Parrish: I had the same experience as Clare. I used Proctorio in 12 courses with an average of 40 students each and no students of color complained to me that they had trouble accessing Proctorio. In fact, I was available on Zoom to help students to get into Proctorio if there were problems and did not observe any problems of access myself.

    Victor Yu: Proctorio allows for various levels of sensitivity setting.

    Cheryl concluded discussion by asking students in the room to voice their comments and perspective. They were invited to use the google doc or reach out to her or the other Senate officers. She would like to hear from the student groups like DASG and the Classified Senate to get their inputs.

    Cheryl outlined the Senate’s next step. A lot of information has been shared from this week and two weeks ago. She would like the Senate to arrive at a timely decision but not a rash decision. To come up with something actionable for both short and long term. Cheryl will work to provide the leadership needed for a solution that will make people feel heard and confident in their classrooms. The Senate will continue to work towards a solution together to make students feel humanized and respected and to validate their work. 

    Discussion on AP 4130 - Hiring Procedures

    The Senate started discussing AP 4130, in the joint meeting with Foothill last week since APs are district wide policies.

    In the big picture, there are board policies BP, then administrative policies AP. AP 4130 addresses the hiring procedures. The policy was last updated in 2002. The body has discussed it for over two years. The comments have not been ignored. They have not arrived at a consensus and they will continue to discuss it.

    Since Cheryl became Senate President, she has been given the suggested changes to Section C on faculty hiring for input. 

    The two sections that received the most feedback last week were “including students on the hiring committee” and “current part-time applicants with re-employment preference getting automatic interview.”

    Mary D shared the following from the 2019 Senate minutes:
    After much debate, the Academic Senate, in early 2019, put together this addition to AP 4130:
    “. . .all hiring committees for President, Vice Presidents, Associate Vice Presidents and Deans where there are two or more designated places for faculty have a designated place for at least one part-time faculty member. For this purpose the Faculty Association rep is counted as a faculty member.”
    That the part-time faculty member would have re-employment preference.     
    That preference on a Dean hiring committee would go to a faculty member from that division, but if no one stepped up (by whatever reasonable deadline) the designated space could go to a part time faculty member from a different division at De Anza.”
    They considered putting the wordings “if no PT faculty member is willing to step up (by whatever reasonable deadline),”  “the work of the committee would not be held up.”

    Mary D quoted from the Equity Action Council’s Reaffirmation of the College Value: “We believe in democratic participation of every member of our community.”

    Cheryl thanked Mary for the feedback. She will bring this up with the APM, Academic & Professional Matters Committee.

    Cheryl asked for feedback on the following suggested change:
    When the applicant pool contains part-time faculty employees who meet minimum qualifications and have reemployment preference in the division at the college hiring the position, at least two of these applicants shall be included in candidates selected for an interview.

    There was a question on how the number two was determined.  Cheryl didn’t know but will ask for the answer.

    Discussion on including students on faculty hiring committees. 

    Last week’s discussion included a suggestion that students should not be involved in the entire hiring process but add the option of including students in the final interview and teaching demonstration stages. The time commitment to go through all the application documents can be overwhelming.

    Melinda shared her experience at Santa Clara University where students were not involved in the reading of the applications and the selection for interviews. There was an interview with all students who asked difficult and thought provoking questions.

    There was a reminder that not all faculty are instructional faculty. Non-instructional faculty candidates would not give teaching demonstrations but could have some other form of student engagement. 

    Cecilia asked about the section in the document:
    In the event that a hiring process results in more than one candidate who meets the present or expected needs in the same discipline, the College President may determine to increase the number of available positions.

    Cecilia mentioned that the library has been interviewing candidates, and asked what may happen if there are two equally qualified candidates.

    Cheryl and Lydia: The final decision is always the President’s purview. However, that would be “borrowing” against another position. Positions are not created out of nowhere.

    There was discussion about the usage of the words “may,” “allow,” “recommend,” and “require.” The general consensus was to change “require” to “allow.”

    Cheryl encouraged everyone to review the document before next week.


    Report-outs and Good of the Order: 

    The Senate continued to use the new interactive system Report-outs for written and verbal reports and conversations from around the college.

    Lydia: There will be a monthly workshop series on strategic planning starting in December. Further information coming in the email.

    Mary D reminded everyone to submit their proof of vaccination before coming to campus and also check mailboxes that are overflowing.

    Mary P motioned, Erik seconded, to adjourn, no objection.





    Cheryl Balm


    Mary Pape

    Executive Secretary

    So Kam Lee

    Part-time Faculty Representatives

    Ishmael Tarikh

    Mary Donahue

    Academic Services & 
    Learning Resources

    Cecilia Hui

    Bio/Health/Environmental Sciences 

    Robert Kalpin

    Anna Miller

    Business/Computer Science/
    Applied Technologies

    Rick Maynard


    Career Technical Education & Workforce Development



    Counseling - General

    Robert Alexander

    Lisa Castro

     Counseling - Embedded

    Felisa Vilaubi

    Helen Pang

    Creative Arts  



    Disability Support Programs & Services and Adapted PE 

    Kevin Glapion

    Anita Vazifdar

    Equity and Engagement

    Liliana Rivera

    Intercultural/International Studies



    Language Arts 

    Shagun Kaur

    Lauren Gordon

    Physical Education 

    Louise Ortiz

    Mark Landefeld (F)

    Physical Sciences, Math, & Engineering

    Lisa Mesh


    Social Sciences & Humanities

    Emily Beggs

    Nellie Vargas

    Student Development & EOPS

    Melinda Hughes

    Curriculum Committee

    Erik Woodbury

    Professional Development*

    Dawn Lee Tu

    Administrator Liaison*

    Lydia Hearn

    DASG Representatives*

    Dimitri Yanovskyi

    Adel Burieva

    Faculty Association Representative*

    Mary Donahue

    Affinity Group Representatives*

    Glynn Wallis, BFSA

    *non-voting member





    Lloyd Holmes

    De Anza President

    Rob Miesa

    VP of Student Services

    Christina Espinosa-Pieb

    VP of Instruction

    Pam Grey

    VP of Administrative Services

    Hyon Chu Yi-Baker

    Director of College Life & Student Judicial Affairs


    Marisa Spatafore

    Associate VP of Communications & External Relations


    Classified Senate

    Michelle Fernandez

    De Anza Student Trustee

    Mallory Newell

    Institutional Research

    Moaty Fayek

    Dean of Business/Computer Info Systems

    Renee Augenstein

    Articulation Officer

    Brian Malone

    Tenure Review Coordinator

    Daniel Smith

    Dean of Creative Arts

    Eric Mendoza

    Dean of Physical Education and Athletics

    Thomas Ray

    Dean of Language Arts

    Alicia Cortez

    Dean of Equity and Engagement

    Randy Bryant

    Dean of Career & Technical Education (CTE)

    Kathryn Maurer

    Foothill Academic Senate President

    Karen Chow

    FHDA District Academic Senate President

    Laureen Balducci

    Dean of Counseling, DSPS & Title IX Coordinator

    Anita Kandula

    Dean of Biological, Health, and Environmental Sciences

    Michele LeBleu-Burns

    Dean of Student Development/EOPS

    Lisa Mandy

    Director of Financial Aid

    Nazy Gayloyan

    Dean of Enrollment Services

    Edmundo Norte

    Dean of Intercultural/International Studies

    Jerry Rosenberg

    Dean of Physical Sciences, Math & Engineering

    Judy Miner

    FHDA Chancellor

    Elvin Ramos

    Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities

    Patrick Gannon

    Director, Book Store

    David Ulate

    FHDA Research & Planning

    Mae Lee

    Curriculum Committee Vice-Chair

    Tabia Lee

    Faculty Director of Equity, Social Justice & Multicultural Education

    Tim Harper


Zoom Information 

Meeting URL:

Meeting ID: 985 9877 0352
Passcode: 581358

Phone one-tap: +14086380968,,98598770352# US (San Jose) 

Back to Top