The De Anza Academic Senate
ApprovedNotes for the meeting of
July 27th, 2009
Senators and Officers present: Anderson, Argyriou, Beckum, Botsford, Brennan, Cichanski, Cordero, Goodwin, Hanna, LaManque, Lee-Klawender, Lathers, Maynard, Mitchell, Setziol, Sherby, and White,
Senators and Officers absent: Cadge-Moore, Coleman, Dolen, Glapion, D. Guevara, J. Guevara, Hughes, Logvinenko, Miller, and Swanner,
DASB: Classified Senate: Lois Jenkins
Administrative Liaison: Rich Schroeder
Guests: Wendy Low-Yee
Curriculum Co Chair: Anu Khanna
[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 2:32, a quorum being present.
I. Approval of Agenda and Notes: The agenda was approved as distributed.
The notes of July 6th were approved as distributed.
III. College President’s Update: All totaled, cuts to the California Community Colleges were announced to be approximately $935 million pending marginal further cuts by the governor [to be made by July 28th]. Murphy said that amounted to approximately a 10% cut but that number is deceiving in that some of the announced cuts were in the form of the timing of payments and a “variety of other tricks”. Also, of the 10% overall, there was only a 5% cut in apportionment (apportionment being the base, ongoing funding of the colleges). The bad news was that categorical programs were cut from 32 to 68%. The federal government was said to be stepping in to backfill half of that money, meaning 16 to 34% cuts.
The De Anza categorical “hit” was said to be most drastic in matriculation funding with a loss of over $700,000. DSPS and EOPS suffered 16% cuts. Regardless of the level of cuts to categorical programs, there is no relief from the mandates that are represented by the programs.
Reductions in programs and services will be exacerbated by rising or steady costs in some areas where the expenditures are especially hard to avoid. As an example, Murphy pointed to College Services’ budget for paper products which is $69,000 over budget.
In a gamble, the District administration has decided to reduce course offerings by some 500 courses, 300 of them at De Anza. The hope [an odd formulation given that the institution exists to offer classes] is that the State will reduce its FTES cap by 3.8%.
Murphy began closing by emphasizing four things:
1. A reorganization of the developmental language aspect of the college – mostly the Student Success Center must occur and in some ways is already occurring.
2. Contemplating program reductions in Student Services is a “methodological labyrinth”.
3. Most of the classified staff face extreme work pressures as a result of open and eliminated positions. Making matters worse, the annual “ramp up” for Fall and full implementation of the new “Banner” administrative software have to happen at the same time.
Extra pay (stipends) will be a target for close scrutiny with an eye towards reduction.
Transparency of all considerations and decisions has been maintained and the Academic Senate has a role to play in it going forward.
Murphy actually closed by responding to a question about student fees. Student fees are slated to increase from $13 per unit to $17.
Back to I: The Notes of July 6th were approved as distributed.
II. Needs and Confirmations: Mia Breen, Sukjit Singh, and David Stringer were confirmed for service on the Dean of Business and Computer Systems Search and Selection Committee.
IV. IPBT Update: A report dated July 6th was distributed and explained by Lee-Klawender. A review of the processes used in divisions leading to proposed cuts ensued.
V. Enrollment Management: Argyriou used the topic of course cuts to segue into a discussion of proposed considerations and suggested areas of priority stated in a document called “Academic Senate Considerations for Enrollment Management” which was distributed. It was clarified that, at this point, everything in the document was either reiteration of existing Senate policy or being stated as things for faculty and deans to think about as they contemplate cuts.
It was clarified that the current process was understood to be department focused (all departments cutting equally). Should the focus change to division or inter division levels (departments potentially cut unequally), the officers made it clear that this would call for Senate oversight as it constitutes significant program reduction or discontinuance, something calling for the use of program review procedures. Speaking of program discontinuance and program review, Argyriou, paraphrasing a long standing State Senate position, said that program review must somehow be separated from program discontinuance processes. Setziol spoke to the conundrum this represented and emphasized that a probationary year element in program discontinuance process could create the chance for a separation in the two processes. For regular program review (not leading to discontinuance) departments would engage in the normal self study required. But for departments considered for discontinuance, there would be both a self study and an external (to the department) review during a probationary year.
Setziol noted that the discussion of both IPBT and Enrollment Management items was exemplary and hoped that the group would keep up the good work.
Lee-Klawender added in closing that a review of Program Review processes was already on the IPBT agenda for the 2009-2010 year.
VI. Budget and Planning: The item, while overshadowing much of the meeting, was not specifically addressed. The two documents mentioned above were intended for this item.
VII. Reassigned Time: Reassigned time has not been forgotten as a focus of review for potential standardization and reduction. The officers and IPBT will be reviewing requisite data as soon as it is available.
VIII. Good of the Order and Announcements: - There was order but no good to report.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:35.