October 12, 2026

Approval of Agenda, Previous Meeting Minutes, and Consent Calendar

The Senate reviewed the agenda, previous meeting minutes, and consent calendar. Mark Landefeld moved to approve, and Alicia Mullens seconded. The meeting notes indicate that the consent calendar passed unanimously. Technical issues with the roll-call voting link were reported.

Name	Agenda	Minutes	Consent Calendar
Mark Hamer	Yes	Yes	Yes
James Capurso	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mary Donahue	Yes	Yes	Yes
Michele Fritz	Yes	Yes	Yes
Denica Kelly	Yes	Yes	Yes
Lauren Gordon	Yes	Yes	Yes
Veronica Acevedo Avila	Yes	Yes	Yes
Dave Capitolo	Yes	Yes	Yes
Yolanda Johnson	Yes	Yes	Yes
Alicia Mullens	Yes	Yes	Yes
Noemi Teppang	Yes	Yes	Yes
Wil Firmender	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mark Landefeld	Yes	Yes	Yes
Shagun Kaur	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mark Landefeld	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mary Pape	Yes	Yes	Yes
Huafu Liu	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ravjeet Singh	Yes	Yes	Yes
Doli Bambhania	Yes	Yes	Yes
Leah Smith	Yes	Yes	Yes
Yuri Chang	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mirsaeid Abolghasemi	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ramona Gabriel	Yes	Yes	Yes
Gayatri Pal	Yes	Yes	Yes
Rusty Johnson	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sukhjit Singh	Yes	Yes	Yes
Kevin Glapion	Yes	Yes	Yes

Public Comment and Announcements

Partners in Learning Spotlight Series

Sarah Wilker announced that the Office of Professional Development (OPD) and Office of Equity have partnered to launch the Partners in Learning Spotlight Series. The series will highlight De Anza faculty members using equity-focused pedagogical strategies in their classrooms. Events will take place throughout the academic year, with the first event scheduled for October 22. Faculty were encouraged to share the announcement with their constituents and attend.

Curriculum and CourseDog Upgrade

Bob Singh reported that the CourseDog upgrade has temporarily affected curriculum processes. However, the development of new courses and programs can continue using Word templates aligned with the existing process. Templates had been shared with department chairs and Curriculum Committee members, with plans to distribute them to all faculty. Curriculum work can move forward more quickly once CourseDog becomes available.

Campus Safety Training

Mark L announced the Chief’s Advisory Committee would offer a Run, Hide, Defend training session during the week. CPR and first-aid training are also available, though recently filled up, and organizers are working to schedule another session.

Zoom Chat and Report-Outs

Erik Woodbury announced that the general Zoom chat would be disabled for the meeting. Participants may still send a message to a meeting host. Follow-up regarding the use of the chat function may be provided after gathering feedback. Mark L raised a concern that the two-week report-out cycle could delay the sharing of information with the Senate.

Committee Needs and Confirmations

Shagun Kaur reviewed several outstanding committee vacancies and recruitment needs.

• At-large Tenure Committee members: The Senate needs a pool of approximately eight to ten members. Only one person has volunteered after several weeks of outreach.

• Equity Action Council (EAC): An additional member is needed.

• Time Block Task Force: Members discussed the continuing work of the committee. It was noted that the previously approved time-block schedule was not intended to be permanent without further feedback, and most committee members had agreed to continue moving forward.

• Other committee opportunities: Faculty were encouraged to apply for the Leadership Assessment Steering Committee, Global Studies Task Force, and the Transfer Programs representative position on the Time Block Task Force. Applications were requested by 5:00 p.m. Friday so that appointments could be considered for approval at the next Senate meeting.

Faculty were encouraged to submit applications promptly to allow the Senate to move forward with appointments.

Presidential Search Hiring Committee Elections

Election Results 

The Senate conducted elections for faculty representatives to the Presidential Search Hiring Committee. Voting links and ballot management were administered by S. Kaur. Voting Results were done via an online voting form. The results are below: 

1) Representative for Part-Time Faculty: Christina Wright

It was noted that per the established process, So Kam Lee’s name would be moved into the general pool. 

Name	Votes
So Kam Lee	8
Christina Wright	16

2) Faculty Association: Rich Booher 

Name	Yes	No
Rich Booher	22	1

3) Candidate 1: Erik Woodbury 

Name	Votes
Erik Woodbury	11
Veronica Acevedo Avila	5
Karen Chow	2
Amy Leonard	2
Sukhjit Singh	2
Viviana Alcazar	1
Andy Ponce De Leon	2

4) Candidate 2: Karen Chow 

Name	Votes
Karen Chow	6
Veronica Acevedo Avila	4
Amy Leonard	4
Sukhjit Singh	5
Viviana Alcazar	1
Andy Ponce De Leon	2
Erick Aragon	3

5) Candidate 3: Erick Aragon 

The voting results showed a tie between Veronica Acevedo Avila and Erick Aragon. Erik W. exercised the tie-breaking vote in favor of Erik Aragon, citing the importance of diversity of disciplines represented on the committee . The discussion emphasized the value of representation across divisions, backgrounds, and length of service at the college. 

Name	Votes
Veronica Acevedo Avila	7
Amy Leonard	4
Sukhjit Singh	4
Viviana Alcazar	2
Andy Ponce De Leon	2
Erick Aragon	7

Discussion 

A question was raised about whether alternates would be appointed. Erik W responded that representatives would need to be available for the full committee process. Bob S asked how faculty who are not on the hiring committee could communicate their priorities to the representatives. The Senate discussed inviting hiring committee members to attend a Senate meeting and speak with faculty.  Alicia M. expressed appreciation for the diversity of representation reflected in the selection process.

Quick News and President’s Updates

Academic Senate Newsletter Returns 

Erik W announced that the Academic Senate newsletter would resume publication. Faculty were invited to submit articles, announcements, or other content to Erik W. Area representatives may also be invited to contribute.

Proposed Resolution on Scheduling Changes

Erik W introduced a rough working draft of a resolution intended to support faculty input into course scheduling changes, particularly as the college considers budget reductions. Faculty were encouraged to review the draft and email comments or suggested additions to Erik W or the Senate officers. Presented draft for review and feedback and stated we would bring this back for review in a week or two. 

Mary Pape noted that scheduling deadlines for the following academic year, including Winter 2027, Spring 2027, and 2027–28 planning, were approaching, with schedules due October 30. She emphasized the need to move the discussion forward promptly. The Senate discussed bringing the resolution back for additional consideration. Erik W indicated that time could be allocated at the following meeting, even with an ASCCC-related agenda item scheduled. The resolution remains a working draft and requires further discussion.

Academic Senate Budget Proposal

The Senate reviewed a proposed Academic Senate budget draft by Denica Kelly and Erik W. which was approved. The presentation showed the year’s proposed budget items, similar to last year’s and went over areas which budget was increased. The discussion moved to the Senate's contribution to the student scholarship fund (housed with the Foundation). The Senate discussed increasing the scholarship contribution. Mark L. suggested contributing $10,000 while Angela Winch suggested $6000. This was seconded by Doli Bambhania. Shagun K asked the body to consider whether to transfer the funds to the Foundation account or retain flexibility by keeping funds in the Senate account. For possible future faculty needs. 

Increase of donation to $6000 was approved unanimously.  With that change, the budget was adopted through unanimous consent.

Senate Student Award 

Denica Kelly and Veronica A presented on the senate student award. The committee described its process for providing financial assistance to students facing immediate needs, with awards generally ranging from $250 to $500 and requiring faculty nominations. The priority deadline for scholarship nominations was identified as October 16. This year, $2,000 is available per quarter, and the committee discussed establishing regular review dates for future quarters. Faculty were encouraged to nominate students by the priority deadline.

Study Abroad and Global Studies Program Update

Erik W provided an update on the study abroad program, which has operated for several years without dedicated full-time faculty support, sufficient release time, or a regular program review process. The program is suspended for 2027, with the possibility of resuming in Summer 2028. A task force is expected to be formed during fall quarter to examine how study abroad and global studies programs operate at De Anza and Foothill, review potential program models, and develop recommendations for consideration by the college's PIVOT Committee.

During public discussion, questions were raised by the La Voz reporter present, about the decision to suspend the program and the role of budget reductions and administrative scheduling decisions. Erik directed questions about the administrative decision-making process to college administration.

Low-Cost Textbook Resolution — First Read

Resolution Presentation 

Amy Leonard and Shagun K presented a proposed resolution to lower De Anza's low-cost textbook threshold from $50 to $30, including tax, to align with the statewide threshold used for Management Information System (MIS) reporting.

Shagun explained that De Anza previously used two categories—zero-cost and low-cost—with the low-cost threshold set at $50. State reporting requirements now uses a $30 threshold. Maintaining different thresholds could create inconsistent reporting and additional administrative complexity, particularly for courses participating in the course exchange with Foothill, which has already adopted the $30 threshold.

The presenters explained that accurate classification helps the college report course material costs to the state. The resolution was developed by Amy Leonard and James to bring De Anza into alignment with the statewide standard.

Resolution Discussion 

Discussion ensued covering the below questions and considerations: 

• How will publishers respond to the lower threshold by reducing prices, particularly where materials are currently priced around $50? Amy L responded that hopefully this update will pressure publishers to lower costs. 
• The availability of funding for open educational resources (OER) and whether current funding would continue. If faculty want to work on OER they can. There are also PGA points available for this work, or faculty can also choose to do this as a PDL project. 

• How faculty could determine whether course materials meet the $30 threshold. We can work with the bookstore on this. 

• Whether the threshold should be based on current textbook-price data.

• Whether laboratory supplies, such as lab coats and jackets, are included. 

Shagun K. clarified that laboratory coats and jackets are not included in the textbook threshold. The discussion also referenced statewide efforts to expand zero-textbook-cost and OER offerings. Faculty were asked to consult their constituents and provide feedback before the Senate considers it again. 

Comprehensive Program Review — Summer Work Review Discussion

Erik W presented updates from the summer work of faculty members and administrators reviewing the instructional comprehensive program review process. The goal is to make the process more useful to departments and more student-centered, with greater emphasis on students' educational journeys and qualitative discussion rather than relying primarily on departmental metrics.

The proposed framework identifies students achieving their educational goals on their own timelines as a guiding principle. Members discussed the need to define a reasonable timeline in a way that recognizes the diversity of community college students and their circumstances.

Student Timelines and Institutional Practices

Members noted that students may be balancing employment, parenting, and other responsibilities, and that some students take substantially longer than a traditional four-year timeline to complete their educational goals. International students may also face fixed timelines. Members suggested that the document should use language that accounts for these differences and consider how student perspectives might inform the definition of reasonable timelines. The discussion also emphasized the college's responsibility to examine its own practices. Course scheduling, section availability, budget constraints, and other institutional systems can affect students' ability to complete their goals in a reasonable timeframe.

Department Participation and Workload

Members discussed challenges in completing program reviews across departments of different sizes.

• Small and single-person departments: Members expressed concern that the review process can place a disproportionate workload on one full-time faculty member. Combining departments for review may not always be practical when their disciplines differ substantially.

• Large departments: Members noted that participation can be difficult to coordinate and that some faculty may opt out of the process.

• Cross-departmental collaboration: Suggestions included creating a structure or form to facilitate collaboration across departments and deans, identifying departments with similar needs, and discussing program reviews collaboratively with deans.

• Time and compensation: Members discussed the possibility of scheduling a mid-quarter flex day to provide dedicated time for program review work. Concerns were raised about involving part-time faculty when compensation is not available.

Questions were asked from members who have never been involved in program review. Erik W and Ram Subramaniam clarified that the chair facilitates the review, but the review should reflect the department as a whole rather than being the responsibility of one individual. Members also noted that the rubric is useful in clarifying expectations and identifying areas for growth and support.

Role in Future College Planning

Members noted that the revised program review documents will inform the work of new college committees, including the Pivot Committee and the Faculty Prioritization Committee. The discussion highlighted the importance of ensuring that the framework is workable for departments of different sizes and provides meaningful information for institutional planning. The Senate will return to the comprehensive program review documents for additional discussion at a future meeting. Faculty were encouraged to review the materials and share feedback with their area representatives.

Good of the Order 

Erik W shared information about a haunted house event/fundraiser hosted by the Moreland School District.