Back to De Anza College Home Academic Senate
De Anza College | Faculty Directory

Notes - October 13, 2003

De Anza Academic Senate
Approved Notes for the meeting of
October 13th, 2003

Senators and Officers present: Annen, Araki, C. Cole, Cordero, Dolen, Fisher, Goodwin, Guitron, Hearn, Hertler, Joplin, Logvinenko, Lopez-Morgan, Mitchell, Salah, Setziol, Sheirich, Tavernetti, Weisner, and Winters
Senators and Officers absent: Bryant, Chang, Druehl, Illowsky, Kline, Rashall, Schafer-Braun,
DASB Student Representatives: Tammy Marquez
Classified Senate: Cyndy Dowling
Administrative Liaison:
Guests: Karl Schaffer, Daryl Jones

[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 in the Conference Room A at 2:40 p.m., a quorum being present.

I. Approval of Agenda and Notes: The agenda was approved as distributed. The notes of October 6th were approved with minor corrections.

II. Needs and Confirmations: In the absence of Illowsky, Mitchell led this item. He went carefully through the list of needs, reminding the group of the functions of each of the committees for which faculty are needed and the consequences of not staffing them.

All of the non contested positions were filled by those proposed in the agenda materials plus Lydia Hearn as an additional member for the Professional Relations Committee. Jackie Reza was selected among those nominated for the President Search Committee

III. Scheduling of Brandy’s De Anza Budget Report: Mitchell reported that Mike Brandy will come to the October 20th meeting to give essentially the same report he gave in a presentation conflicting with the Senate meeting time on the 13th.

IV. Technology Issues: Willie Pritchard was present to inform the group and respond to questions. Pritchard began by reminding the group that he continues to seek dialogue with and information and input from faculty. He then moved to sharing his primary concerns of the present time. Not surprisingly, the effects of last year’s budget cuts and the lack of any promise for improvement in this year’s budget news were high on his list. Also mentioned were increases in virus attacks coinciding with a staffing reduction and the virtual elimination of the training function among the ETS functions. Pritchard concluded his presentation by asking for feedback as to creating an effective way for him to establish informal communication with faculty.

V. Senate Budget Update: Mitchell began by presenting overviews of the two Senate funding sources, B budget and private dues account. There was said to be approximately a $7,600 balance in the Senate’s college account. From that account, some expenses (e.g. the FACC conference and printing) are unknown as to amount. Also, the correct amount owed the statewide Academic Senate is still unknown and could be as little as $2,000 or as much as $6,000+.

As for the dues account, there is approximately a $7,000 balance with encumbrances of at least $4,000. Mitchell will put these budgets back on the agenda when he is prepared to recommend specific expenditures.

VI. Plus/minus Grading: Setziol reviewed the recent history of this initiative and reminded the Senators that, by agreement with the Board, the Senates and administration will be putting out information to inform faculty and then conducting one more, perhaps final, faculty referendum. To be included in that information is a clear presentation of the fact that the Board will expect faculty to award plusses and minuses if their grade books indicate that those marks are warranted. It was suggested that the Senators could, in the near future, contribute items for a “most common questions” approach to getting information to faculty.

VII. District Program Review: Setziol reviewed the status of District level talks about Program Review relative to Program Initiation and Program Elimination or Significant Curtailment. Whereas an earlier draft was criticized for being over specific, the current draft was criticized for not being specific enough about what would trigger a special review of a program such that it might be recommended for elimination or significant curtailment. A minute of discussion revealed the difficulty of the task. Winters asked for clarification of the role of the PBTs in establishing criteria for triggers etc. Setziol’s response was that communication needed to increase in general and that information to and from the Senate was needed before any process was engaged. He also mentioned that an understanding as to the coordination of all the PBTs was needed.

VIII. Other Stuff for the Good of the Order:

Copies of Debi Schafer-Braun’s remarks to the Senate October 6th were distributed.

Goodwin told the group of her dilemma in not being able to get to the meetings before 3:50

The meeting was adjourned at 4:28
 Updated Thursday, October 23, 2003 at 12:26:27 PM by Academic Senate -
Login | Logout | NewsItems