The De Anza Academic Senate
Approved Notes for the meeting of

November 9th, 2009

Senators and Officers present: Anderson, Annen, Argyriou, Beckum, Brennan, Glapion, Goodwin, Hanna, Hertler, Larson, Lathers, Lee-Klawender, Maynard, McNamara, Mjelde, Nengo, Nickel, Norte, Roberts, Schaffer, Setziol, Singh, Stockwell, Swanner, and Tao

Senators and Officers absent: Botsford, Cordero, and Shah

District Senate President: Alex Kramer

DASB: Classified Senate:

Administrative Liaison: Rich Schroeder Guests:

SLO coordinators: 

Curriculum Co Chair:


[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 2:35, a quorum being present. 

I. Approval of Agenda and Notes: The agenda was approved as distributed.

The notes of November 2nd were approved as distributed.

II. Needs and Confirmations: Shannon Hassett was confirmed for service on the Discipline Hearing Board.

III. Plenary Session Resolution 4.02: For this and for the subsequent items on resolutions, District Academic Senate President Alex Kramer presented and he and the De Anza officers gave some analysis. This resolution was said to be very similar to one defeated a year ago. After it was presented, the commentary and a straw poll showed clear opposition to the resolution. The primary reason cited for opposition was the fact that the resolution required colleges to use only IGETC and or CSU Breadth as the General Education portion of their degrees if the degree is a “Transfer Degree”

IV. Plenary Session Resolutions 6.01, 6.02, and 6.03: These three resolutions all called for changes to the law in California requiring districts to spend a minimum of 50% of their budgets on “the direct cost of instruction”, i.e. the salaries of faculty offering instruction. One called for a simple abolishing of the law, the second called for removing counselors and librarians from the denominator in the calculations (effectively removing them from the calculations entirely), and the third calling for including counselors and librarians in the instructional faculty side of the equation and increasing the percentage required from 50% to 54%. Abolishing the law received no support. There was uncertainty as to the ramifications of the second resolution, and the third raised a concern that the topic, once opened, could result in a very different outcome than the one intended. Argyriou said that unless she heard some compelling argumentation in favor of the third resolution, she would vote against it as well.

V. Plenary Session Resolution 10.01: This resolution called for local Academic Senates to encourage districts to take advantage of a Title 5 provision allowing for the continued employment of faculty members when their qualifications no longer meet minimum qualifications for a discipline owing to changes in the discipline qualifications. Complexities involved in the issue prompted the group to recommend that Argyriou and or Kramer move to refer the resolution to the State Executive Committee for further presentations and discussions.

VI. Plenary Session Resolution 13.01: This resolution called for a variety of relationships between faculty collectively and individually and “the CLASS Initiative”. After presentation and discussion, the group decided not to support the proposal or the idea behind it.

VII. Plenary Session Resolution 18.01: This resolution promoted funding and implementation of a statewide assessment instrument devised by the California State University system. After careful consideration of the pros and cons, the group asked Argyriou and Kramer to oppose its use by community colleges.

VIII. Plenary Session Resolution 18.02: The topic was the same as in the previous item but focused on faculty control over the data collected by the assessment. By the end of discussion, it was clear that faculty control of implementation was inappropriate given lack of support for the concept.

IX. Plenary Session Resolution 13.03: This resolution regarded something called the “Accelerated Learning College”. Several speakers commented on the fact that the central tenet of both this concept and the CLASS Initiative was setting aside the protections of faculty in current law and regulation (including minumum quals et cetera). The resolution, being in opposition to the concept, was favored by those indicating a primary digit in an upward direction, a strong majority of those in attendance.

X. Plenary Session Resolution 13.04: This resolution called for faculty control over class size based on pedagogy (as opposed to a purely or primarily economic basis) and was very popular with the group.

XI. Good of the Order and Announcements: - A question was raised about the distribution of a document pertaining to budget which came with other documents appropriate for this meeting and which was not referred to during this meeting. Argyriou responded that it would be discussed at the November 16th meeting.


- Senators were asked to monitor division discussions in the near future regarding budget reductions to ensure faculty participation as per the Senate position taken November 2nd.



The meeting was adjourned at 4:24.

Back to Top