October 19, 2026

Approval of Agenda, Previous Meeting Minutes, and Consent Calendar

The Senate reviewed the agenda, previous meeting minutes, and consent calendar. Alicia Mullens moved to approve, and Veronica Acevedo Avila seconded. Roll call vote was as follows:

Name	Agenda	Minutes	Consent Calendar
Huafu Liu	Yes	Yes	Yes
Shagun Kaur	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mark Hamer	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mary Donahue	Yes	Yes	Yes
Veronica Acevedo Avila	Yes	Yes	Yes
Michele Fritz	Yes	Yes	Yes
Denica Kelly	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ravjeet Singh	Yes	Yes	Yes
Noemi Teppang	Abstain	Abstain	Abstain
Barbara Dahlke	Yes	Yes	Yes
Alicia Mullens	Yes	Yes	Yes
Angela Winch	Yes	Yes	Yes
Wil Firmender	Yes	Yes	Yes
Angelica Esquivel Moreno	Yes	Yes	Abstain
Kevin Glapion	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mark Landefeld	Yes	Yes	Yes
James Adams	Yes	Abstain	Yes
Ramona Gabriel	Yes	Yes	Yes
Umar Douglas	Abstain	Abstain	Abstain
Lisa Castro	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mirsaeid Abolghasemi	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mary Pape	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sukhjit Singh	Yes	Yes	Yes
Rusty Johnson	Yes	Yes	Yes

Public Comment

• La Voz News: Gavin Rust provided an update on La Voz News and announced that the publication had received 28 awards from the Journalism Association of Community Colleges. He shared that another print edition would be published the following week and encouraged campus support to assist in recommending advertisers to support the newspaper funding. Mary Donahue, a former editor-in-chief of La Voz, also expressed support for the publication.

• Zero-Textbook-Cost and Low-Cost Textbook Icons: Mary Donahue raised the possibility of adding zero-textbook-cost (ZTC) icons to class listings for Winter and Spring. She noted that she had contacted the person responsible for the initiative and that the icons could be added. The form to fill out for Winter quarter, and for Spring Quarter to get the icon on your course listing in the schedule of classes, is now available: 

• Submit a Winter 2027 Zero Cost or Low Cost textbook adoption

• Submit a Spring 2027 Zero Cost or Low Cost textbook adoption

• James Adams reported that the ZTC website had been refreshed and that the Winter and Spring ZTC/OER surveys were available. A campus-wide message would be sent to encourage participation.

• Campus Water Availability: Ramona Gabriel reported that bottled water was unavailable in the campus dining hall and raised concerns about water access for students and employees. Erik Woodbury indicated that water is available at designated locations and that the issue would be investigated.

• Undocumented Student Success Week: Angelica Esquivel announced events for students and employees in recognition of Undocumented Student Success Week taking place this week.

• Campus Printing Issues: James A. reported that campus-wide printing services remained unavailable. Efforts to resolve the issue were ongoing in collaboration with ETS and the printing vendor. The Library and Student Hub is providing free printing as temporary alternatives. The Library has been handling a substantial volume of printing to support students during the disruption (up to thousands of pages).

Committee Needs and Confirmations

Shagun Kaur presented committee vacancies, workgroup updates, and opportunities for faculty participation.

• Equity Action Council (EAC): A faculty representative needed.

• Time Block Task Force: A faculty member from transfer programs needed to fill a vacancy.

• Prerequisite Challenge Workgroup: Ram Subramaniam explained that students have the right to challenge prerequisites, but the college does not currently have an established process. The workgroup will develop a process. The deadline to apply is next week.

• Senate Social Events Committee: The Senate invited volunteers to help organize Senate social events. Noemi Teppang and Christian Rodriguez volunteered. 

A vote was done via rank choice voting for the Global Studies Task Force. This table shows how each candidate was ranked across all ballots, before any tabulation. Each column is a ranking position (1st choice, 2nd choice, etc.). Totals may be lower in later columns if voters did not rank every candidate.

Name	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th
Christine Chai	4	7	4	4	3	0
Karen Chow	8	3	2	3	3	3
Diana Ferrara	3	4	4	3	5	3
Miloni Gandhi	2	2	4	5	4	5
Andy Ponce de Leon	3	3	7	4	1	4
Mona Rawal	2	3	1	3	6	7

Resolution on Faculty and Academic Senate Involvement in Course Scheduling and Reductions

Erik Woodbury presented the resolution, Faculty and Academic Senate Involvement in Course Scheduling and Reductions. He reported that he had not received comments on the resolution in advance and read it aloud before opening the floor for discussion.

Discussion on Resolution

Senate members expressed support for the resolution and discussed its implications for course scheduling, reductions in course offerings, and faculty participation in related decisions. Mary Pape thanks Erik for drafting the resolution and sees it supporting schedulers and faculty in all areas as we move through the upcoming discussions. Mary D motions to approve the resolution. Seconded by Mary P. 

Bob Singh requests a second read. Erik Woodbury confirmed this is the second read, but we can table the resolution if more time is needed. Angela Winch inquired where the resolution would go after the Senate and Erik Woodbury clarified it would go to the college president, VPI, Chancellor, and Board of Trustees. 

Senate members discussed proposed wording changes, including whether to revise language concerning the Senate’s role and whether to adjust the strength of particular statements. Shagun K suggested changing wording in one of the resolved clauses to use “urge.” Alicia M. suggested that some language change “consult” to “collaborate” to emphasize the shared conversations among deans, department schedulers, and faculty. Erik Woodbury explained that the resolution uses the term consultation because it encompasses collaboration and provides an appropriate basis for faculty participation under the applicable legal framework. Bob S. questioned the use of the word “firmly” and Veronica A. supported keeping it, as it falls under 10+1 as under faculty purview. 

Mark Landenfield raised concerns about the timeline for reviewing scheduling changes, particularly for part-time faculty who may have limited opportunities to participate in discussions with deans and need timely information to make employment decisions. Senators also discussed whether the resolution could affect Winter 2027 scheduling and how frequently course reductions might occur.

Bob S asked whether existing documented procedures already addressed course reductions. Erik clarified that scheduling and reductions involve administrative processes, but faculty can provide input on the criteria and procedures used. Other senators noted that there was no established campus-wide process for reducing course offerings and raised concerns about gaps in communication among deans, department chairs, schedulers, and faculty. The discussion emphasized faculty role in evaluating the academic consequences of reductions and identifying ways to mitigate disruption to students’ educational pathways. Mary Pape described how scheduling discussions had historically taken place at the departmental level, typically involving deans, schedulers, and department chairs. She noted that the current process differed from past practice, including the recent receipt of scheduling information for 2027–28, and characterized the resolution as a reminder of the need for faculty involvement and consultation.

Conclusion and Approval

Senate members discussed the importance of considering program requirements, course sequencing, prerequisites, transfer pathways, and students’ ability to complete their educational goals when evaluating reductions. The resolution identifies these considerations as central to faculty involvement in course scheduling. Mary D moved to approve the resolution. Mary P seconded the motion. The resolution was approved unanimously. Senate leadership will communicate the approved resolution to administration and distribute it to department chairs.

ASCCC Presentation: Shared Governance and Collegial Consultation

Bethany Tosaka, ASCCC Area D Representative, and Erik Wada, ASCCC Secretary, presented on shared governance, collegial consultation, and the legal framework governing faculty participation in college decision-making. The following topics were covered:

Academic Senate Roles

Sources of Authority and Effective Participation

The presenters discussed the foundations of collegial consultation, including the California Education Code, Title 5 regulations, and local Board policies. They explained that effective participation requires meaningful involvement but does not guarantee agreement or require identical levels of participation from every constituency. Final decision-making authority rests with the governing board where applicable. Effective participation is relevant to students, faculty, classified professionals, and administrators.

Primary Reliance and Mutual Agreement

The presenters distinguished between primary reliance and mutual agreement. Under primary reliance, the governing board generally relies on Academic Senate recommendations in designated academic and professional matters. Recommendations may be rejected only under exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons. Mutual agreement applies to areas in which agreement between the Senate and governing board is required under the applicable framework.

The presenters reviewed the Foothill-De Anza Community College District's Board policies addressing areas of primary reliance and mutual agreement. They encouraged faculty to understand the 10+1 academic and professional matters and recognize when an issue falls within the Senate's purview. Additional areas of Senate interest discussed included equal employment opportunity reviews, collective bargaining and negotiations, faculty appointments, and flex schedules.

Brown Act, Legislative Bodies, and Teleconferencing

Presenters covered the Brown Act and its implications for Academic Senate governance, committee operations, and public meetings. The discussion focused on transparency, accountability, public access, and the responsibilities of faculty participating in shared governance. They following topics were covered:

Legislative Bodies and the Definition of a Meeting

The presenters discussed how the Brown Act applies to legislative bodies, including Academic Senates and standing committees. They explained that standing committees with continuing responsibilities may be subject to the Act, while temporary task forces may be treated differently depending on their structure, purpose, and responsibilities. Reviewed the importance of understanding what constitutes a meeting and emphasized that the Brown Act was designed to promote transparency and accountability in public decision-making. These principles apply to Senate deliberations and committee work, requiring public business to be conducted through appropriate, publicly accessible processes.

The discussion also addressed communication between members outside formally scheduled meetings. Senators were encouraged to consider how email exchanges could become deliberations when members discuss, develop, or seek consensus on matters within the body's jurisdiction. The presenters emphasized the importance of avoiding communications that circumvent public meeting requirements.

Meeting Procedures and Public Transparency

Agendas generally must be posted at least 72 hours before a regular meeting of a legislative body. Meetings must provide opportunities for members of the public to address the body on matters within its jurisdiction, consistent with applicable requirements. The presenters discussed roll-call voting and the importance of clearly documenting formal actions and votes. Accurate, accessible minutes help document actions taken and support public accountability. Meetings must be conducted in a manner that allows members of the public to observe the body's proceedings and participate as permitted by law.

Traditional Brown Act Teleconferencing Requirements

The presenters reviewed traditional Brown Act requirements for teleconferencing and discussed how these provisions have been implemented in practice. Under the traditional teleconferencing framework, applicable requirements include public access to teleconference locations, identification of those locations, and appropriate agenda posting at those locations. The discussion addressed the responsibilities of members participating remotely. Under the traditional framework, remote locations generally must be identified and accessible to the public, with applicable meeting notices and access requirements satisfied. The presenters clarified that cameras are not generally required under the traditional framework, distinguishing these rules from requirements associated with newer teleconferencing provisions.

The presenters also discussed the importance of ensuring that members of the public can access meetings remotely when remote participation is offered. Technical and accessibility considerations, including public streaming and reasonable accommodations, were raised as part of the broader responsibility to make meetings accessible.

SB 707 and Newer Teleconferencing Provisions

The presenters introduced SB 707 and discussed its teleconferencing provisions, highlighting differences between the newer framework and traditional Brown Act requirements. The discussion covered the following elements of the newer provisions, as presented:

• In-person participation: A quorum of the body's members must participate in person from a single physical location that is open to the public and within the jurisdiction of the legislative body.

• Notification of remote participation: Members participating remotely must notify the body as early as possible and identify an applicable just-cause reason when required by the relevant provisions.

• Audio-visual participation: Remote participants must be able to participate through the required audio and visual technology.

• Documentation: Meeting minutes must identify qualifying just-cause circumstances when required by the applicable framework.

• Public access: The designated in-person meeting location must remain accessible to the public.

The presenters and senate members discussed practical questions about camera requirements and how the rules apply when members participate from private or nonpublic locations. The discussion distinguished between the traditional Brown Act teleconferencing provisions and the newer SB 707 framework, as the requirements differ.

Application to the Local Academic Senate Practices

The discussion returned to the Academic Senate's responsibility to maintain transparent and accountable governance practices. The presenters emphasized that the Senate serves as the voice of the faculty and that open meetings, appropriate voting procedures, accessible minutes, and meaningful public participation are important to maintaining trust in shared governance.  The presenters encouraged senators to become familiar with the legal requirements applicable to the Senate and its committees, particularly when determining whether a group is a legislative body, how its meetings must be conducted, and what requirements apply to remote participation. They also recommended continued engagement with ASCCC resources, relevant codes, and professional development opportunities to strengthen senators' understanding of shared governance and the Brown Act.

Governance Relationships, Bias, and Meeting Practices

The presenters emphasized that effective shared governance depends on maintaining constructive relationships among faculty, students, classified professionals, administrators, and other campus constituencies. Senators were encouraged to engage with other groups in good faith, consider their perspectives, and build relationships that support collaborative decision-making.

Bob S raised a question about how fairness, accountability, and transparency principles address bias in meetings and whether training is available to help participants recognize and manage bias. The discussion also distinguished the legal requirements of the Brown Act from parliamentary procedure and meeting decorum, noting that these practices are related but are not necessarily governed by the Act itself. The discussion reinforced the importance of transparent procedures, fair participation, and respectful deliberation in maintaining confidence in the Senate's governance work.

Good of the Order 

• Joint Meeting with Foothill Academic Senate: The Senate was reminded of the upcoming joint meeting with Foothill Academic Senate at Foothill College in Toyon Room 2020, with a Zoom participation option. The agenda would be posted on the usual website by Thursday or Friday.

• Study Abroad Task Force: Mary Donahue discussed the Global Studies/Study Abroad Task Force. Shagun Kaur announced Karen Chow and Andy Ponce De Leon to be on the task force.

• Course Scheduling Deadline: Bob S asked whether the deadline for submitting class schedules could be extended by two weeks. Erik Woodbury agreed to discuss the feasibility of an extension after the meeting. Request to agendize for future meeting.

• Winter and Spring ZTC/OER Surveys: A campus-wide message would be sent to promote the available surveys.

• Angela Winch announced a Chipotle fundraiser for the De Anza College Nursing Program Tuesday October 27, 4-8PM. Supporters can order and use the code: V6j6Q67 or present the flyer linked here: Chipotle Flyer for Nursing Fundraiser