March 11, 2024

I. Call to Order

---

Welcome

---

Approval of Agenda and Minutes from March 4th, 2024

Mary Donahue moved, Ravjeet Singh seconded to approve both minutes and agenda. No objection. Agenda and minutes approved by unanimous consent.

Public Comment 

Mary Pape shared how she spent an hour with the family of a prospective student with many questions about the college and the CIS program. The family was unable to make a counseling appointment after their campus tour. They ended up meeting with her.  She wondered how many more people out there with questions and did not know where to go for answers.

---

II. Consent Calendar

---

Approval of Consent Calendar (Attachment)

Equity Action Council (EAC): Needed 1 Faculty Representative 

Vernon Gallegos, FT, Tenured

Campus Committee – Meditation Room Improvement Project

Kim Palmore, FT, Tenured

Sherwin Mendoza moved, Catie Cadge-Moore seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. No objection. Committee members confirmed.

---

III. Needs and Confirmation

---

District and College Needs (Attachment)

Vice Chancellor, Business Services Hiring Committee:

Faculty Member, business or finance background helpful, volunteer by Thursday, to be confirmed at the next meeting.

Academic Senate Vice President:

to serve fall quarter 2024, to fill in for the current AS VP who will be on PDL for fall 2024.

Executive Secretary

for RAPP Resource Allocation and Program Planning Committee. 

AS Scholarship Committee members:

to promote, process, and read scholarship applications.

EO Representatives:

as many as possible for hiring and tenure committees.

Academic Senate GE Committee:

Some divisions still need representation

---

Confirmations

No confirmations

---

IV. New & Continuing Business

---

Report from DASG

Lydia Wong: Winter quarter is wrapping up with the general student election and work on budget deliberations for next year. They are working on their internal officers, their senior positions. Their senators have worked on the Justice Series Events. They have been working on DASG newsletter to shared governance. Next week they will be meeting with the Chancellor to discuss the Medical Center and Measure G.

COOL Committee Proposal (second read)

DA Cool Proposal

James Capurso thanked those who have given feedback and comments in the DA COOL Proposal document, emailed him, or talked to him personally about it. He also appreciated the feedback and input from the Tech Committee in their recent meeting.

The Online Advisory Committee reported to the Tech Committee in the past. 

The Tech Committee discussion considered not going with the name COOL because of the potential confusion with the Foothill COOL. Also, there are some differences between the work of the De Anza and the Foothill online committees.

Some people in the Senate meeting thought the name DA’s COOL is cool. There were also preferences for OAT and a few liked GOAT. 

James explained that this committee was an evolution of what was known as the online advisory board. This evolution would make it a subcommittee of the Senate and give it the ability to go through curriculum evaluation on the online hybrid modality forms.

The discussion continued with Representation/membership for the committee. 

There are two ideas listed on the bottom of the proposal.

Idea 1: One representative from each division  

Idea 2: One representative from each village  

For Idea 1, there were concerns over getting representatives from each division for the committee. Some divisions don’t have capacity to fill seats. There were also concerns over the size of the committee.

For Idea 2, there were concerns over adequate representation of the diverse departments. Bigger villages may need more representatives.

There was also a concern over communications. There's methods of communication already set up within the division. Divisions and departments meet more often. 

The challenge would be balancing inclusion and function.

Erik Woodbury called for a vote on the 2 ideas

Idea 1, 16 votes

Idea 2, 7 votes

As a subcommittee of the Senate, this committee like the Curriculum Committee will be subject to the Brown Act. Curriculum does have working subgroups that meet online where they do not make decisions or vote.

James estimated that the committee will meet 5 one-hour meetings per quarter.

There was discussion on the Additional Representatives membership. Someone suggested including affinity groups.

People should add their comments and suggestions to the proposal document. They could also email James, Gabby, or the online office.

James will revise the proposal for the 3rd read next week

---

Training and Support for RSI/Online Teaching: Reflections on Joint Meeting and Next Steps

Mary Donahue asked for clarification regarding what training is required for those teaching an one-unit class. 

In the Foothill proposal, those instructors with one-unit classes will still participate in all of the training except for peer evaluation of their curriculum at the end. That is the Foothill plan, not the De Anza plan.

James shared the RSI-Crosswalk powerpoint presented at the FHDA District Joint Senate Meeting to get people's thoughts and reactions to the presentation. He also went over some items that they did not have a chance to go over.

There were confusion and conflicting views regarding what training may be required for those with prior online experience. Some of these people feel strongly that training should not be required for them and that training should only apply to the new hires.

Cheryl Balm felt very strongly that all instructors need to continue to learn new things, especially when it comes to technology.

Shagun Kaur recalled that the two campuses started like apples and oranges in the beginning. De Anza focused on a more holistic approach to online teaching, whereas Foothill was only looking at RSI. She was heartened by the fact that at the end the two Senates were able to pass 2 joint decisions. 

Number one, that training should be available to faculty in the district in both modalities, synchronous and asynchronous. There was clearly agreement and collaboration between the campuses. 

Number 2 that “In order for faculty to teach online at the district one must be trained in accessibility, interaction, course design, and assessment”.

James acknowledged the question regarding the huge discrepancy between the hours count for Foothill and De Anza. Foothill proposed a 4 hour training for RSI and accessibility whereas De Anza proposed separate 10-hour training for RSI and accessibility.

Mary Pape pointed out that the discrepancy is in the initial training. She felt that it is more important for the two colleges to agree on the ongoing education.

James explained the differences. The De Anza program is for ongoing education while the Foothill program is a refresher.

Mary Donahue advocated for the same rules on both campuses, especially for part-time faculty. FA will negotiate the terms based on what the Senate decides. The FA does not have any opinion on this. They would want to negotiate the same terms for both colleges, instead of separate ones.

James believed the colleges are more similar than different. He used Slide 14 as an example. He explained that the difference was in the evaluative mechanisms. De Anza will be using the J1 evaluation process to ensure RSI in a course.

Slide 14 Ensure RSI is taking place in a course

Foothill (for each course):

1. 6 hours peer review meetings; OR
2. ''Test out'' via J1B with MT on items 6 & 13; OR
3. POCR or Humanizing STEM completed for the

specific course

DeAnza:

• J1 evaluation process

Shagun: I think it is imperative to acknowledge we are redesigning our online training and they are heading to an addition. While we might have philosophical differences, I do agree we need to come close.

The leadership will be planning another joint meeting next quarter. The Senate will have more time for reflection and discussion on the subject.

Related Documents:

AP 4105

RSI Crosswalk-FHDA Discussion

Foothill Amendment to RSI Documentation Model

De Anza Online Training Certification Proposal

Developing a model

De Anza Online Ed: Online Training Certification Proposal

Online Ed Training Proposal

---

Updates from the Special Board Session

There is no new report on the Medical Center. The Chancellor and the Board want to separate the Medical Center from Measure G. Both projects could proceed concurrently without time delays.

Shagun shared a document on the Medical center: https://cis.deanza.edu/gov/college_council/meetings/20231212%20FHDA%20Questions_to_County_re_Clinic%20FINAL-1.pdf

There were concerns over how the projects may affect the Flea market, DASG, and the solar panels. Someone suggested a joint DASG, Classified Senate, and Academic Senate meeting to address these issues. 

In this special meeting on Measure G, the Board expressed interest in seeing proposals to reallocate the Event Center Fund.

The would like to see detailed plans for a flexible space/performing art center at De Anza, boost infrastructure at De Anza and at Foothill, IT

At the special board meeting 40-50 people spoke in support of individual projects on their campuses. Almost the same number of people submitted letters.

---

Good of the Order

Congratulations to the Tenure Recipients:

Maurice Canyon, Equity and Engagement

Sheldon Fields, Counseling and Disability Support Programs and Services

Norma Guido Flores, Enrollment Services

John Jimenez, Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Engineering

Elsa Jimenez-Samayoa, Biological Health and Environmental Sciences

Joshua Losben, Creative Arts 

Rana Marinas, Biological Health and Environmental Sciences

Bianca Melendez, Counseling and Disability Support Programs and Services

Christian Rodriguez, Language Arts

Xavier Silva, Business, Computer Science and Applied Technology

James Tallent, Business, Computer Science and Applied Technology

Susan Thomas, Social Sciences and Humanities

Trisha Tran, Career Technical Education and Workforce Development

Glynn Wallis, Student Development and Extended Opportunity Programs and Services

Amy Wang, Equity and Engagement

Catherina Wong, Business, Computer Science and Applied Technology

---

Adjournment

Cheryl Balm motioned, Catherina Wong seconded, to adjourn, no objection.

---

Attendance

In person

Erik Woodbury, Patty Guitron, So Kam Lee

Cheryl Balm, Sam Bliss*, Catie Cadge-Moore, Mary Donahue, Kevin Glapion, Lauren Gordon, Elsa Jimenez-Samayoa, Rusty Johnson, Sherwin Mendoza, Lisa Mesh, Anna Nguyen, Liliana Rivera, Mary Pape, Christian Rodriguez, Lakshmikanta "LK" Sengupta, Ravjeet Singh, Li Wei Sun, James Tallent, Felisa Vilaubi, Glynn Wallis, Catherina Wong,*Lydia Wong

Online

Mirsaeid Abolghasemi, Lydia Hearn*, Cecilia Hui, Mark Landefeld

Absent

*Deborah Armstrong, Vernon Gallegos, Shagun Kaur, Jayanti Roy