General Meeting Information

Date: January 16, 2024
Time: 10-11:20
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

    Welcome and Introductions

    I Erik, Rob, Mallory

    Approval of Minutes from December 5, 2023

    A Mallory

    Update on funding available for personnel hiring

    I Pam/Martin
    • Discussion of low-ranked positions

    • Discussion of moderate-ranked positions

    • Discussion of high-ranked positions

    • Ranked Choice voting to identify top five requests

    • Discussion/Approval of Top-5 list (if time permits)

    Link to Ranking Document with Summaries

    Rank Choice Voting Test Ballot: Marvel Superheroes (Conf Code: 7760298 )

    Rank Choice Voting for Hiring Positions: (will be updated during meeting)

    D Erik

    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information

  • Minutes

    Welcome, Introductions, and Review of Agenda: Erik Woodbury, Rob Mieso, and Mallory Newell as tri-chairs. Denica Kelly as new Executive Secretary for RAPP. 

    Erik mentioned there is no update on the funding available, but we’ll have it soon. 

    Debbie Lee Question raised a question if the agenda item about rank choice voting meant we will be voting today or if we are just discussing the voting. Erik responded that the item is to vote, though the votes will not be binding. Voting will help to organize the information we currently have. (i.e. This is the response we got from the group currently re: their top 5; like a poll.) Debbie asked for further clarification on if the group would be discussing rank choice voting or if we were going to vote using rank choice voting in today’s meeting (based on the positions we already ranked). Erik answered that we will explain what rank choice voting means and have a test ballot today. If time allows, we also plan to select top 5. 

    Debbie raised an additional comment that there is no agenda item that allows discussion of the criteria on how we plan to make voting decisions. Asks if this will be an agenda item. Erik responds that while it was not explicit on the agenda, it can be discussed. Mallory adds that we don’t know how much we have available at this time, so we don’t know how far the position list to go. 

    Debbie asks if there will be criteria to use and discuss in terms of the committee using rank choice voting. Asks what will be used as criteria. Erik responds that the previous work done in RAPP, including the 300-word summaries and planned discussion will guide the committee members and they will be using the criteria that's been looked at. Debbie asks for item to be put on agenda – before rank choice voting occurs, the group will talk about the criteria to be used for rank choice voting. She states she is not clear on the criteria. Though there are rankings of high, moderate, and low, it needs to be clear. Erik states that the group will discuss before they vote. 

    Elvin Ramos asked if voting can be move to next week, given that not everyone was able to connect w/ their constituents in the Fall, as the rankings happened towards end of the Fall quarter. As reps, it’s good to bring these discussions back to constituents before deciding on top 5. Elvin proposes to move approval and voting later, though not sure we’ll even have time today.  

    Erik responds that if we have time to do rank choice voting today, he’d like to do it as a poll. As there are only 2 meetings before College Council, we may be up against the deadline. People had until December 5 to do this. Elvin says that based on time and when the group last met, it didn’t work out to meet with constituents. Some groups have not been able to meet and expressed being against voting today as reps did not have time to do their due diligence to make a decision. Thomas Ray states he understands Elvin’s concerns and agrees that few groups had time to meet between December 5 and now – If there is voting, constituents should be able to provide input.

    Erik states there is a proposal on the floor to postpone voting until next meeting and to strike item from the agenda. Seconded by Tina Lockwood. No opposition. Consensus that voting will be moved to next meeting. Erik cautions that there may not be time next week – will plan to do a test poll today to make sure people know how it works.

    Agenda is updated: Polling is removed. Added agenda item for criteria for rank choice voting.

    Approval of Minutes from December 5, 2023:  Erik asked for comments. No comments made. Minutes were approved. 

    Update on funding available for personnel hiring: Martin Varela states they met w/ district and did reconciliation but will put it together this week and let people know when there is an update re: funding.

    Tim Shively asked how the funding works, as Foothill’s allocation committee knows exactly how much they have and have already done hiring. Does the district talk with Foothill first? Martin responded he is not sure if they’ve met w/ Foothill at all. They have just gone through the list of questions and positions and noticed there were some inconsistencies. Once those are taken care of, they will come up with a dollar amount. They are reconciling positions.

    Pam Grey states that the target is to bring the vacancies to DBAC (District Budget Advisory Committee) which will be happening net week on the 23rd. That’s our goal. There can be estimates but they’re just estimates. On 2/1, we will have a De Anza Budget Committee meeting. My hope is for the 6th. Erik states he knows we want to know the amount allocated, but still believes the job now is to discuss where we want to put these positions. As much as we want to know the amount, we don't need it, though it would be nice. 

    Thomas asks if we have more than 5, then how do we process when going beyond top 5 that are selected. Erik responds that we will select the “next 5” and then the “next 5” - We will rank into top 5, mid 5 and low 5. Tim states it would be good to get info about how much funding is available before the state budget gets too far along as there tends to be a curb on spending when the budget starts going south. 

    Discussion of Low-Ranked, Moderate-Ranked, and High-Ranked positions:  Erik begins discussion – states that last meeting, we went over high, medium, and low rankings and then looked at incomplete ones. Last left off on the Music position and will pick up our discussion today. Will continue through moderates and highs. Erik states we don't know how many positions we have but is confident we won’t have 15. Things can move up or down. Be open to moving up or down.

    Spreadsheet with positions is shared by Mallory: (

    Erik says we are looking at the documents w/ 300-word summaries today and kicks off discussion re: the Music position. Music has gone from 6-7 faculty to 1 faculty. Erik states he personally feels that failure to fund a position says something about whether we want to have a Music program. If we want it, we have to invest in it. Erik states there are some comments he has questions about, as some info is not reflected in the summary. Erik advocates to move it up higher. 

    Tim states there’s something “screwy” about FT/PT ratios. We need to see the numbers of faculty not just the percentage. Now they have 1 person who is thinking of going to ARTICLE 18. Its not sustainable unless we give it legs. Mallory shares PDF in chat:

    Alicia Del Toro states when she was on curriculum, Music was struggling even then. If it's down to 1 faculty moving to PT, then that’s concerning. Asks if we know how many people are impacted by the Music Dept? Mallory responds that 5 years ago, they had 2.5 FT faculty and they had around 1200 enrolled – Now they have 675 and 1 full-timer. Erik states as they have lost instructors, they have lost the ability to offer classes. Mallory states we have 2 PT faculty who make up 67 percent and have no overload.

    Tim shares he reviewed the summaries – In one of them it cites the fill rate at 83 percent – Isn't that good? It cites there is still room for improvement but 83 percent is pretty good and maybe that shouldn't be cited as a criteria for making or breaking the decision if it's that high. Tim asks if there was feedback from deans and would like to hear discussion around that. Erik says he does not know. Debbie says there was no reconciliation for this position but it was not ranked between. (It was ranked low.) There was no reconciliation after she spoke on behalf of the position. Mallory states that we can put forward a proposal re: moving it up or keeping it the same. Erik mentions that he spoke with President Holmes and the president think it’s critical to support the music program. He'd like the committee to consider the strength of this support. 

    Michelle Hernandez asks about the demographics of students in Music program? Erik states it is about 43% Asian, 4% percent Black, 6% Filipinx 21% Latinx - It’s comparable to campus make up. Tim shares possibility of specific measures to address retention work. Mentions they were trying to incorporate music ethnography (a course to create a Mariachi band, for example). Tim motions to move music to a high ranking. Daniel Solomon seconds the motion. No questions or opposition. Motion passes unanimously and position is moved to “high.”

    Erik states we have 3 moderate positions. Geography is our next position and is currently ranked moderate. Any questions or want for discussion? Tim says there's a question re: the new GIS program and if it’s something we should get into because Foothill already has theirs going. Tim mentioned hearing things at Foothill re: programs they want to push that overlap with ours (example: Animation) Thinks that’s something we should consider - if we have agreement between the colleges and if we’re honoring each other’s initiatives. Maybe we don't need to feel locked in. Erik asks about discussions between the 2 campuses as to what measures we’ll take not to duplicate programs. Thomas responds that those talks are happening outside of this body. Even if they have not historically respected our “turf,” we do need to be aware of the possibility of cannibalizing the same body of enrollment over the district and harming 2 programs. Erik says he hears Tim that Foothill’s process is different. 

    Tim mentions another consideration is modality. Foothill does lean towards online offerings. If we focus on in-person, we may not cannibalize the population. Debbie says it comes down to the question: Is there enough enrollment and interest for 2 colleges to have a CTE program? Deans should bring back to their divisions and ask if there is enough CTE? Do we need to have it? 

    Erik asks if there are questions re: the position. Does anyone want to advocate to move it up or down? Mallory states if we look at the data sheet, this position has twice the enrollment and slightly less faculty than the music position does. Shares the data sheet for Geography: Erik says they have 0.7 full time faculty for a total of 2.6. They have similar faculty, but 1200 enrollment as opposed to 675. Elvin says that as Dean of the area, he has some comments – It's a known fact that the only full-time member of the department is retiring this year. 

    Alcia De Toro states that there’s a lot of talk about CTE and GIS and there is a difference between CTE as a part of Geography. Is this talking about CTE or a Geography ADT and certificate? Thomas says that comes through Curriculum. Alicia states there’s a difference between the CTE program and the ADT. Erik says he thinks they’re proposing both here based on their summary. Daniel says he doesn’t know if this is helpful, but Thomas mentioned discussion between colleges as the main obstacle for Geography. Is there a timeline for these discussions or is there any info we can get about these? (The discussion re: where our “turf” is and whether we can have GIS classes.) Thomas responds they’ve just begun that process and only had one serious meeting to break the ice. Minimally, it will take Winter and Spring to identify a process or agreement of any kind. Anything that discussion group comes up with will have to go to academic and professional matters. We would feed competing proposals to academic and professional matters at the district level. 

    Erik states he is also participating and hope it all settles by Spring. It's complicated and simple at the same time. There are some philosophical hurdles to get over. Good questions and observation – Moves on to next one: Political Science in SSH Division. Mallory shared in chat:

    Tim says the last sentence in the 2nd summary sums up his thoughts - If we had the money, we would fund all positions, but comparatively, doesn’t think the need for Political Science stands up to Anthropology or other positions we’ve looked at. Erik ask if there are questions, thoughts, comments? None.

    Moves on to last moderate position – Math. Asks if they had high positions? Mallory says no. Erik states they had two but the other is low. They don't have a high position. Questions or comments? Mallory in Chat: Math data sheet (to be consistent):

    Erik states we will move on – as there are no questions or comments. That brings us to high ranked positions. We will start at the bottom with Grounds and Custodial Supervisors both ranked high currently. Questions or comments? Adam Contreras states he has concerns. They have been asking for custodial and grounds workers since 2008 and have yet to see any additions to our custodial and grounds teams. There was a decision during golden handshakes to get rid of the Grounds Supervisor and Custodial Supervisors to save money and that the Manager of Operations could handle the work. Says they didn't have a say but were asking for more workers. States it is vital to supply workers instead of supervisors. Custodians have had the responsibility of many buildings, classrooms, and covering for people who are sick and on workers comp. Says they never receive temporary employees for people who are on workers comp. Adam states he is here as the VP of CSEA and a groundsworker. Says they did not get support from Jennifer Mahato, so they do not support supervisor hiring until there are custodial and groundsworkers, especially with the amount of money funding the positions. States that the money we have could fund 2 custodial and grounds positions. 1 supervisor position could fund 2 workers. This would relieve stress for the workers. Adam states understanding concerns re: the manager not being able to oversee all the shifts, but workers can adjust their shifts as they have in the past. States they all communicate through email – they just want accountability and that's not happening with the current manager. When things don't get done, the current manager is not held accountable. Adam states that they take it personally when they have been asking for so many years and don’t receive anything. The need for workers has been more than 15 years. Would like to see some initiative to create new positions for custodians and ground before adding to their own team. Would label this as Moderate. 

    Tim mentioned to Adam that they try to get input of faculty before moving forward. How does it work in your area (Custodial and Grounds)? Adam responds that they are not really asked for feedback. There are no meetings to ask what they collectively need or what would benefit the campus (as far as cleanliness, etc.). When they ask for the current manager to step up, they think we need to be “babysat.” Adam states they don't get asked for feedback. 

    Tina states in the past, we lost a lot of Custodial and Grounds because of layoffs in 08. Asks if there have been opportunities since then to add to our pool or positions? Or is this the first opportunity? Erik responds that this is the first opportunity to look at hiring as a whole. Explains that what we’re doing is taking funding from Instructional and seeing if we can use it for other positions, whether or not they’ve had the opportunity through other positions. Pam responds that this is the first opportunity, as they did not have general funds available. This came from meetings from the unions – that more supervision was needed. 

    Manny DaSilva says he has been here since all these cuts. This is the first opportunity. When the time came to hire, it went to Instruction, so they’ve always been waiting. They have to get TEAs but haven't found any who meet the min quals. As far as Grounds and Custodial, they’ve been advocating since they lost their positions. When the Manager of Operations is sick, we don’t have a supervisor, so Manny says he is back to being manager. When he leaves, Pam has to do the job. Asks when they will get funding. Says he knows it’s hard to figure out. We need more everything. They've been in this loop they've been in for all these years. Manny states being burned out doing multiple roles. The one addition they had was a ground maintenance worker named Matt. They have some open positions in Custodial that are earmarked for replacement. When they reduce the staff, the work is reduced. The website has frequency of service when everyone shows up. When Manny was manager, some custodians volunteered for OT but they burned out. Classrooms and buildings are not being serviced, but in the future, if they are full we’ll be in the same situation.

    Tim asks Manny how has the staffing level decreased? Manny replies that in 2007, they had 30 custodians with 2 TEAs and they had 12 groundsworkers. From 2007-2020, if someone retired, the position was not filled. When Manny was hired, it was 3 custodians per quad. Now they barely have 1 per quad. Service has gotten reduced drastically. He has told the deans that the less people who show up, they will drop the service level. That’s how its been since 2009 or 2010.

    Debbie asks if this has to do with the 50% law, what is preventing us from getting custodial and non-instructional. Are we able to get non-instructional staff? Manny responds that this question is for this group – RAPP. States they need someone to cover when people are out, as College Operations if very thin. Adam states he gets that across the board, we’re all short. Adam’s stance is not supporting the supervisor positions. Will support members getting relief and support. When Jennifer Mahato flat out said she would not hire new grounds and if Manny is short-handed, at least hire 1 supervisor and maybe 2 worker positions.

    Adam states that there were already positions; then it was decided to get rid of them and they don't have any new hires in grounds and custodial. Adam says when they had the supervisors, they didn't hire any new workers. We still need workers to cover the buildings. We currently have Matt, but we lost a custodial position to get a grounds position. We need new positions. When measure G happened, Adam says he never supported because there was no plan for new custodial or grounds to cover the building. It keeps repeating itself. Adam asks that leadership show some initiative to hire one supervisor and maybe 1-2 workers. 

    Manny says he did voice his opinion (dissatisfaction) on losing positions at the time. We have seen expansion of the campus; with the new SB 1383 it has increased. He states they have always been the underdog - when custodial and grounds isn't here, you see the difference. Tim says he is hearing that the Ground Supervisor is the priority. Asks if it is possible to move forward with one of the operations positions and convert the other? Erik responds that we can’t convert. We can rank them. Adam states that with different shifts, majority of the work is in the mornings. It’s more vital to have a Custodial Supervisor than a Grounds Supervisor – Makes suggestion to move the Custodial Supervisor up and make Grounds lower. There’s only 6 of us – The Manager of Operations can manage 6 people. 

    Erik summarizes that there is agreement that Grounds and Custodial needs increasing but disagreement on where that support should go. CSEA is saying they don't agree with supervisors. The other side says they need supervisors. Manny states he was moving all over the place, had a heart attack and was burnt out. Adam states that if the Custodial Supervisor moves forward, because of the different shifts, that would cover more. Erik says that we’re currently getting into lots of details re: how the specific area is run. Says we need to focus on rankings. Tina states that the campus has a problem with burn out. In Anthropology, for example, the one last standing instructor is going to get super burned out because they are carrying the load of the department. It's probably happening in Custodial and Grounds. One person is covering around 18 hours of the day. The entire department needs to be reconstructed. We are having a chicken and egg conversation. We need everyone. 

    Tim says this is analogous to a department that is starved for full-time faculty - In that case, we don't hire an administrator. We hire the faculty or workers. Agrees with Adam’s suggestion to go one supervisor to pick up slack. Pam points out that these are different skillsets. We’re veering into the management of the department. We’re still only a quarter or so face to face - when we were at 83 percent full-time faculty. There is a reason the management team put these forward. And because the custodians having 18 hour shifts that one person could not manage. 

    Erik states that one proposal is for one of these and not the other. Some say both. No one says otherwise. We should keep them up high. Tim motions to move Ground Supervisor from High to Moderate and to leave the Custodial Supervisor ranked high. Pam and Manny object. There is a vote (Yes to more from high to moderate; No to keep as is.) Motion does not carry. They will keep as is and both will remain high.

    Erik states that next position is for Leadership Development & Student Activities Coordinator. Debbie asks about the funding source for this position. Asks if there are funds elsewhere. Thought that last year we received funds for this position and had the understanding that this is funded by DASG. Izat Rasyad states they are a student rep and DASG senator. They haven't received information re: change of funding source. The college previously paid for it and it got pushed to DASG who currently funds it. Says that Michelle can elaborate. Michele LeBleu-Burns states that this position was always (prior to a few years ago) funded by the college. Due to reductions and deficit, it is now funded by DASG, but it really should be funded by the college. This is an important part that is connected w/ retention for diverse students from every background to participate in leadership. It is critical. The students have been funding it but they have lost revenue over the years. If we did not have funding in DASG, the nearly 70 clubs we have would not have anyone to coordinate them. It would also drastically impact their ability to participate.

    Debbie states she is not questioning the prioritization of the position but wondering if there had been funding for this position. Was fuzzy on money that we’ve received and if that will be put towards this position. Erik asks if there are any questions or comments? None.

    Now moves on to Environmental Sciences Faculty which is ranked high. Questions or comments? None.

    Erik asks about the Faculty Coordinator for Office of Equity. Any questions or comments? Tim asks how long the position has been vacant. Erik responds since end of last June. Tim states he is cautious about this position given what happened with the last occupant. We have 15 positions and there's no way they all will remain high. Tim says if he had to cut one, he could be persuaded to move it to moderate. Melinda Hughes asks if Tim is basing this on personality (of the last occupant). She states she’s trying to understand his position, as the issue with the last person had to do with personality or behavior. But that has nothing to do with the position. She does not think we can eliminate the position. Tim responds that it is less about the personality and more about the way the position was written, which facilitated things with the personality. For example, it wasn’t considered that the person had no direct contact with students. So student evaluations were done by peers. There were things that could have been drawn out more precisely, but Tim states he would be circumspect about putting it out there exactly how it was before.

    Tina states that she understands the sentiment of once bitten, twice shy, but we do a lot of work that all circles back to equity and inclusion. Right now, there needs to be some support in that division if we are asking all divisions to support equity and inclusion. Thomas states that faculty positions are largely written by the hiring committee during the hiring process and the input is provided by the department or division. We don’t know exactly what the job description will look like until the committee is formed. I don’t think this group should tell the committee how to do this, but they should seek feedback from the campus. DEIA efforts are under assault under the country and locally in CA. Making a statement about this core value is also important. 

    Tim responds that it’s not about not supporting equity and diversity – He is wondering if this position is the best way to do it. Re: this position, has it actually had impact on the instructional areas? Melinda responds that the position was thought of when Alicia Cortez was the Dean and this took up so much time, that she needed someone to reach campus-wide. Due to the amount of work re: equity and working with different departments on campus. She needed someone to help with workshops, etc. That’s how the position came about. In the past, we never had the position. It had to do with the amount of work that the campus wanted to do around DEIA. 

    Thomas added that it wasn’t only due to Alicia. It was an evolution of the area that aligned w/ the state’s expectations. There was a faculty director also prior to Alicia. Lydia mentions that it’s just not the amount of work but that there are initiatives that need to be faculty driven that are pedagogical and instructional. We needed something from faculty to facilitate these initiatives. 

    Tim states that given this information, he retracts his motion to move it to moderate. 

    Meeting time has come to end. Erik says to email the chairs if you have remaining questions or concerns about the remaining positions or if you want to discuss them (i.e. Moving them lower.)

Meeting URL:

Meeting ID: 882 3049 1663
Passcode: 978050

Back to Top