May 21, 2026

Approval of Minutes 4/16/26

Minutes approved.

---

College Values 

Ly updated the group on the college values review, part of De Anza's planning cycle. De Anza is externally known primarily for transfer outcomes; the review will assess whether other aspects of institutional identity should also be elevated. The goal is to produce value statements that resonate with students, alumni, faculty, staff, and community, and reflect current context including AI, digital transformation, and a growing adult learner population (age 25+). The proposed timeline runs from Spring 2026 (gather input) through Summer 2026 (brand research) to Fall 2026 (compile results and revise values), with finalization of values and a mission/vision review in Winter/Spring 2027. Attendees completed a 3-question survey on whether current value words feel true, unclear, or incomplete. A question was raised about Institutional Core Competencies and Civic Engagement for Social Justice, which appear on the college website under De Anza Values but were not on the slide; Ly acknowledged the gap and will address it when results are compiled. Results return to College Council in Fall 2026.

---

College Brand Research Presentation

Smith presented the brand and perception research initiative underway this week, directly tied to the values review. The research aims to align internal and external storytelling, establish a baseline of how the college is perceived, and bring external data back to inform decisions. Components include stakeholder sessions (this week), a summer quantitative survey targeting community members and prospective and current students, approximately 18 in-depth interviews with employers, trustees, and community leaders, and a vendor 'secret shopper' exercise through the application and enrollment process. One virtual session remains open on May 28th. A preliminary external scan found De Anza rates 4.0-4.6 out of 5 on review sites; top positives include faculty quality, transfer outcomes, and the Promise Program; areas of concern include class availability, counseling access, and administrative friction. Alumni pride and underdeveloped themes such as workforce programs and international student experience were noted as opportunities. Internal climate data was less positive than external perceptions and was flagged as an area to monitor.

---

ACCJC Annual Fiscal Report 2026

Varela presented the annual accreditation compliance fiscal report for FY 2024-25, generated from district data. Total revenue was $257.8M against expenditures of $257.3M, with salaries and benefits accounting for approximately 82% of spending. The district ended with a positive fund balance increase of $2.1M (ending at $52.1M), and cash position improved from $42M to $61.8M, partly due to Basic Aid funding. FTES grew district-wide from 21,603 to 22,743 (+1,140) and at De Anza from 13,242 to 13,782 (+540). The report also includes required disclosures of leadership changes during the year. No questions were raised.

---

District Strategic Plan draft

Momjian presented the draft District Strategic Plan, currently in the board approval process. The plan establishes five strategic priority areas (Equity by Design, Learning Innovation and Liberal Arts, Digital Transformation, Pathways, and Global Citizenship) and five Wildly Important Goals: positioning the college for short-term financial aid eligibility, creating dual admission pathways with UC and CSU, establishing a digital transformation framework, aligning CTE programs with labor market demands, and ensuring civic engagement for Area 4 students. Each goal has an executive sponsor and a cross-institutional implementation team; quarterly progress will be reported to the Chancellor's Advisory Council. Implementation teams will be oriented in Fall 2026. Discussion raised the potential for the district plan to reduce program duplication between the two colleges, and a concern about college autonomy given past experiences with district consolidation; both were acknowledged.

---

District Planning Cycle draft

Newell presented a draft district planning cycle designed to align timelines across the district and both colleges. Key changes proposed include moving to one plan per entity (eliminating parallel strategic and educational master plans at the college level), a 3-year district cycle and 5-year college cycle (6 years was suggested for cleaner alignment math), and positioning the district plan ahead of college plans - a shift from current practice. District-level technology, sustainability, and facilities plans would be consolidated into one plan led by the district with college consultation, reducing college workload. Timelines would also be aligned to avoid overlap with ISER writing and accreditation site visits. De Anza's approved-but-not-yet-active strategic plan and active educational master plan fit within the current draft; full cycle alignment is projected by 2030-31. Concern was raised that district-led planning could undermine college autonomy and unique identities, particularly given past district decisions that did not serve individual campuses well. Newell acknowledged the concern and noted the intent is shared direction and a culture of trust, not a top-down structure.

---

Time Block Scheduling Task Force Recommendation

Bliss presented the task force's final report and recommendation. This is a first read; no action was taken. The task force was formed in Fall 2025 to address two pressing problems: students average 123 units to complete a 90-unit ADT due to scheduling conflicts, and upcoming construction (G Building, creative arts spaces) will take significant classroom space offline for 4-5 years, making the current scheduling structure operationally unsustainable. The task force spent Fall 2025 researching models at peer colleges and gathering student and department input, established six guiding principles before beginning any modeling, then developed and iterated three model versions from January through April 2026. A student scheduling preference survey confirmed strong preference for a two-day-per-week structure.

The central decision came down to two options: Version 3A (the task force recommendation) features a 7:30 a.m. lab start with a 45-minute midday community break, chosen based on the 'balanced student experience' principle supporting student well-being, work schedules, and family needs. Version 3B (the variant) features an 8:00 a.m. lab start with no community break. The block structure makes it mathematically impossible to maintain both an 8:00 a.m. start and a community break. Both versions will be presented to DASG, Classified Senate, and Academic Senate over the next six weeks for deliberation and recommendation. Courses must be scheduled within designated blocks and may not cross block boundaries; departments may set internal rules within those guardrails; blanket exceptions apply to programs such as nursing and adaptive PE. Administration committed in writing that any in-person class before 9:00 a.m. will be guaranteed to run with at least 15 enrolled students for the first two years. If adopted, a one-year operationalization period follows, with ongoing iteration every two years. The full report and appendices are posted on the college council and time block scheduling websites. Bliss will return to College Council with governance body recommendations; a final read and vote will follow.

---

Highlights from Report out

Please read and share with your constituents.

Incoming DASG President, Allissa Lo reported verbally: the Spring Carnival drew 400+ students; all 2026-27 leadership positions have been filled through internal elections; a Town Hall is planned for next month; the 2026-27 budget was approved by the Board of Trustees on May 11th; and a Student Leadership Recognition event is scheduled for June 3rd. The Tri-Chairs noted the Board budget presentation was exceptionally professional and commended the students.