General Meeting Information

Date: March 11, 2024
Time: 2:30-4:30 PM
Location: MLC 255

This meeting will be held HyFlex, meaning anyone can participate in-person or online.  To join remotely, see the Zoom information at the bottom of this page.

  • Agenda

    Time Topic Purpose Discussion Leader

    I. Call to Order


    Voting and Associate members joining us online, please turn your cameras on and add "VM" to your zoom name to help identify you to the public.

    I All
    2:30-2:35 Approval of Agenda and Minutes from March 4th, 2024 I/D/A All

    Public Comment

    I All

    II. Consent Calendar


    Approval of Consent Calendar (Attachment)

    I/D/A Guitron

    III. Needs and Confirmations


    District and College Needs (Attachment)

    I/D Guitron


    I/D/A Guitron

    IV. New & Continuing Business

    2:40-2:45 Report from DASG I/D Wong

    COOL Committee Proposal (second read)

    DA Cool Proposal

    I/D Capurso

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

    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

    I/D Woodbury

    Measure G and the Medical Center:
    Updates from the Special Board Session


    Good of the Order

    I All



    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information

  • Minutes

    I. Call to Order


    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


    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


    • 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:

    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


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

    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


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


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

Meeting URL:  

Meeting ID: 834 3947 7181
Passcode: 996594

Member   Remote Location   In District?  
Mary Donahue (PT) MLC 243, 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino, CA 95014 Yes
Mark Landefeld (PE & Athletics)   PE 51a, 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino, CA 95014 Yes
Mirsaeid Abolghasemi 101 W.Weddell Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Yes
Cecilia Hui 1230 S Blaney Ave, San Jose, CA 95129 Yes
Sheldon Fields 1201 South Main St, Milpitas, CA 95035 No

Back to Top