Academic Senate

Academic Senate

Notes - September 27, 2004


De Anza Academic Senate
Approved Notes for the meeting of September 27th, 2004

Senators and Officers present: Annen, Bresnan, Bryant, Castano, Cole, Cordero, Dolen, Dunn, Goodwin, Hearn, Illowsky, Jensen-Sullivan, Joplin, Lopez-Morgan, Mitchell, Mujal, Pierce, Salah, Schafer-Braun, Setziol, Sheirich, and Winters Senators and Officers absent: Clavijo, Moreno, Olsen, Weisner, and Rashall DASB Student Representatives: Classified Senate: Administrative Liaison: Christina Espinosa-Pieb Guests: Rich Schroeder, Karl Schaffer, Vladimir Logvinenko, and Farshod Mosh

[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 2:33, a quorum being present.

Mitchell asked to be allowed the personal privilege to take up item II before item I on the tentative agenda. No one objected.

II. Everyone in the room did perfunctory self introductions.

I. Approval of Agenda and Notes: The Agenda was approved as distributed with the retitling of item VI to read "Curriculum Committee Distance Learning Advisor". The notes of June 14th were approved as distributed. Ordinarily they would have been approved by mail in June.

III. Needs and Confirmations: Illowsky presented various committee needs, especially Professional Relations and the Campus Center Advisory Board.

All those proposed for confirmation in the agenda packet were approved.

Illowsky then turned the group's attention to tenure review by introducing Tenure Review Coordinator Rich Schroeder and distributing the latest spreadsheet showing all probationary faculty, all those serving on Tenure Review Committees, and, in bold print, all those newly proposed for service on Tenure Review committees. After holding back some names from consideration due to the inability of division representatives to vouch for the validity of the process by which the names were generated, Illowsky sought and achieved consensus on the remaining names, including the addition of Winters. Other slots remain to be filled. Schroeder asked to be given appropriate names for those as soon as possible.

IV. Review and Update Membership List: Mitchell passed around a spread sheet purporting to contain correctly spelled names and other information pertinent to being the executive committee membership list. He asked everyone to check the entry for their name and to make corrections as appropriate.

V. Confirmation of Standards Committee Members: Mitchell mentioned that it would still be possible to add people to committees already populated through an ad hoc process. Illowsky distributed a few copies of a document showing the committee names and those already serving on each. In particular, she asked for faculty to serve on standard four having to do with governance. Winters mentioned that Eugene Rodriguez had volunteered to serve on standard III. All those proposed on the document plus Rodriguez were confirmed.

VI. Curriculum Committee Distance Learning Advisor: Mitchell and Illowsky both spoke to the item in terms of history of the idea of having such a position, etc. In particular, Illowsky mentioned that she became enthusiastic about the idea while attending the Curriculum Institute conducted by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges this summer. She also mentioned her willingness to provide the function for the remainder of Fall quarter. After a brief discussion during which Christina Espinosa-Pieb mentioned a few concerns about the idea and with the addition of the condition that the Senate support future consideration of the position for reassigned time, it was MSCU(Cole/Sullivan) to create the position of Curriculum Committee Distance Learning Advisor as a non voting advisor to the Curriculum Committee.

VII. Search Committee Selection Process: Mitchell began by pointing to a reprint of the Board Policy on Search Committee process in the agenda packet. He then reminded the group of problems in this area last year and said that he hoped that those problems would not be repeated this year. Christina Espinosa-Pieb then asked the group to work on the beginning of the process. It was requested that the instructional deans describe what they thought would be a workable proposition. Upon request, Setziol told the group that, in the early 1990s, the process worked well by having position approval announcements go to the Senate officers at the same time as the deans. The officers then would inform knowledgeable division representatives who would, in turn, act to get appropriate department faculty to work, in consultation with the dean, to generate the names of prospective search committee members. An item titled something along the lines of "initiating the process of getting a search committee peopled" will be on an agenda in the near future.

VIII. Tenure Review Committee Issues: Mitchell began by suggesting that the time may be right to deal with Tenure Review issues. Some probationary faculty report that the process is a pro forma snap while some consider it odious. Some say they get too little feedback or help while others are told, essentially, to "teach like me". Other inconsistencies including failure to perform on the part of committee members were also mentioned. It was asked whether or not someone could be removed from a committee. The answer was yes and that it has happened on several occasions but was not made known widely. It was clear that there was a lot of interest in working on tenure review problems. It was suggested that we needed to breathe new life into the training process and to have a serious discussion of the basic propositions involved in tenure review like whether the process is one of nurturing a valued colleague or of weeding out failures or, somehow, a combination of the two. The question was asked if something could be done about people who seem fine in the first two years but start to fail in the third phase. One answer was that it might take changes in negotiated contract language.

XI. Other Stuff for the Good of the Order:


  • Mitchell was ordered to see to it that the clock was fixed in the room.
  • It was clarified that PBT and Equity reports would resume this quarter.

The meeting was adjourned at 4: 45 p.m.

Academic Senate
Email: academicsenate@

Phone: 408.864.8358

Last Updated: 6/18/08