General Meeting Information

Date: January 30, 2024
Time: 10:00AM - 11:20AM
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
    10:00 - 10:03 Welcome and Introductions I
    10:03 - 10:05 Approval of Minutes from January 23 I/A
    10:05 - 11:20 Disucssion of RCV and spreadsheet data analysis I/D
      New Poll for Top 5 Bucket I/D
      Discussion and Approval of Top 5 D/A
      Poll for Middle 5 Bucket I/D
      Discussion and approval of Middle 5 D/A
    Data Link to Ranking Document with Summaries  

    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information

  • Minutes

    Attendance: Erik Woodbury, Rob Mieso, Debbie Lee, Adrienne Hypolite, Alicia De Toro, Anita Mathyala-Kandula, Benjamin Furagganan, Bidya Subedi, Christina G. Espinoza-Pieb, Daniel Solomon, Diana Martinez, Dr. Robert Alexander, Eric Mendoza, Erik Aragon, Hieu Nguyen, Martin Varela, Mary Paper, Mehrdad Khosravi, Melinda Hughes, Michele LeBleu-Burns, Michelle Hernandez, Nazy Galoyan, Pam Grey, Patty Guitron, Thomas Ray, Tina Lockwood, Vins Chacko, Tim Shively, Manisha Karia, Kristin Skager. Sam Bliss, Adam Contreras, Lydia Hearn, Nicholas Turangan, Izat Rasyad, Ian Ang

    Welcome and Introductions 

    Approval of Minutes from Last Meeting

    Rob reviews Minutes from the last meeting. Minutes are approved. 

    Discussion of RCV (Rank Choice Voting) and Spreadsheet Data Analysis 

    Erik reminds everyone he sent an email re: RCV and spreadsheet. Apologized re: RCV as it didn't work how it was presented and didn’t serve what we were trying to do. Erik pulls up results. Explains how RCV did not work during our process. It wasn't until round 4, 5, 6, and 7 there was some off Math and anything ranked below 4 didn't mean anything. The order of Top 5 was important. In this case it would have been better to do a standard vote for 5 top choices. People didn't even get to their 5th vote. This was a failure and we’re going to do something new. Erik clarifies that we didn't get to the top 5 so it really focused on the top 3 -- That's what ended up here but didn't do a vote on the 5 things separately. There's ways we can use RSV but it is overly complicated. Also clarifies that there was an impression that people only need to worry about the top 5. People felt like they were asked to rank 16. Erik apologizes if that felt unexpected to the group and says chairs should have communicated and are still learning. Asks for comments or questions. 

    Erik shared spreadsheet. Says he also extracted individual data out. Explains how this shows the flaw in our RCV process. In the top 5, for example, was the Grounds Position. So we can see this position had some ranked high, but it was equally ranked in mid and low so it didn't show the distribution of votes and the disagreement. This is another presentation of the data. Erik states the chairs want to try a new poll to get to the new top 5 link. We will try to collect the information in a different way. 

    Tim says says that one thing that occurred to him was whether we need our choices to be blind. We’re not voting for individuals here, but we’re a committee. We should be able to put forward a position publicly and defend it. Erik responds that the fact that this was a secret ballot grew out of a past practice in IPBT. Tina states that for Classified, Bidya, Andre and her circled back to criteria to ask if each position satisfies A, B. or C. It was helpful to talk amongst themselves. 

    Rob states that we have gone through the process in small groups, and we have the results we have high, moderate, and low. We came back with the whole group to review and one moved to high. We have 16 high now and the challenge is that we don’t have enough resources. The chairs have been discussing how best  we can do this. To Tim’s comment, it’s not about being secretive -- but  about going back to our guiding criteria to show how these positions came forward. All the positions are high. We can't rank 1 through 16 -- We;re a recommendation body to College Council and to the president. How do we allow for the next phase of the decision-making to have some voice?. It would be challenging if we rank 1-16. 

    Debbie asks if the district got back on how many positions we have. Erik says we’re not waiting on the district. Pam and Martin are clearing the list to make sure we’re confident in all numbers and will be presented at BAC (Budget Advisory Committee) this week. Debbie asks when and Erik respond on Thursday, but we don’t have the number today. Debbie ask if this was supposed to be done last year (what we’re currently working on) Asks if we’re having another round in the Spring. Erik confirms. 

    New Poll For Top 5 

    Erik shares a new poll and lets everyone know how to vote and rate each position. Debbie states that we need clear instructions. Are we just voting for top 5 as our “yes?” Tim asks if we want to have more than 5 that stay “high?” Rob responds that we’re in our first round and we’re only voting on the top 5. You will only say “yes” to 5. The rest you can say “maybe” or “no.”Erik adds that you can say “maybe” and “no” to as many things as you want. 

    (Everyone takes time to vote.) Erik shows a pie chart with results. 

    Erik reads off positions with more than 50 percent “yes.” Grounds Supervisor, Leadership Development & Student Activities Coordinator, Anthropology Faculty (At 50/50), Physics Lab Tech, and Enrollment Services Coordinator. Similar to the RCV results. Debbie asks if Erik can go a little slower and not scroll down so fast? Stop at 5 second each. Daniel Solomon asks if link can be shared. Rob reminds everyone we’re looking at the top 5 for this round. The idea is we take the top 5 now out of the 16 and in the next round we’ll move forward. Erik says we’ll also have some discussion about this. Notes we have 22 votes today - we’re missing 2. Erik state’s w will discuss the TOP 5. Reads off: 

    Grounds Supervisor - 32 percent say “No”  

    Leadership Development & Student Activities Coordinator - 14 percent say “No” 

    Anthropology-  32 percent say “No”  

    Physics Lab Tech - 14 percent say “No” 

    Enrollment Services Coordinator - 1 person said “No” 

    Erik starts with Enrollment Services Coordinator - Asks if anyone wants to discuss? States it seems like there is broad support. Moves to Physics Lab Tech. It is 68% Yes and has 3 “no” and 4 “maybe.” For Anthropology, it’s exactly 50/50 - It’s 11 “yes” and 7 “no.” Tim says he’s looking at the disparity with 13 yes and 7 no -  it seems a heavy bottom compared to the others. He’s wondering why we need the “maybe” category. If it's not yes, it will be reconsidered? Erik said we wanted to provide some gray area. Tim says some do have one-third saying no. Debbie states she is happy with moving those 5 positions and thinks there will be more discussion in the middle 5. Tina agrees with Debbie. We can argue every single position all day long. Says it’s okay to move this group forward and have a meat and potatoes discussion for the second bucket of 5. Based on how many we have, we’re not going to have 5 or 10 -  it will be something like 7, 8 or 6 - the middle group is where we need to say yes or no. That's where the hard decisions are. 

    Rob says we are picking the top 5 and agrees - lets get top 5 done and then move to next 5. Tim says in the case of the Grounds position, for example, even if we moved maybe to yes, it wouldn't make a difference, but some of the other ones with a lot of maybes, it may be different. Erik says that most of our positions are Classified positions right now. (Points out a proportionality issue) There’s only 1 Faculty position here. Circles back to Music - is shocked we’re in this position re: Music showing that this campus does not value the music program. They need to have 6 positions but it has one. It's about the viability of the Music program. Erik says he does not feel comfortable not having music in the top 5 and is currently against the motion to move forward.

    Debbie states she is uncomfortable with the way this conversation is going. We’re deviating from the vote and not advocating for certain positions. We’ve already all said that these are high positions. We are looking at whatever criteria we used re: safety and operations for the college. And that's what people went with. Wants to caution us because there's a lot of places we can show need -- In her Division for example, there’s no FT CETH for Ethnic Studies. Debbie says she could say that but we should be clear about what the agenda is. Erik states that advocacy happened last week by Debbie and others and the ones advocated for are in the TOP 5. 

    Tina says it's okay to make a decision today and move forward and we can talk a lot about it. We, as a college, merged the PBTs because we did think that all the positions were important and we opened ourselves up to having non-faculty positions be filled by previously faculty dollars. We opened ourselves to that possibility already. We walked in here knowing that could be a possibility and its happening now. With the criteria that we circled back to, and we thought that this group should move forward. Elvin agrees with Debbie and Tina. There was enough time that we could advocate or voice our opinion and we could go on and on. Ultimately, let’s move forward and we need to be cautious when advocating for specific areas. It's already been discussed. And there's privilege in the chairs’ position - we can open the floor to discuss other areas. We need to move forward with the motion. Tim says he will advocate - he’s appalled that there is one instructional position and it's at the bottom. The funding belongs to no one we’ve had the SRP for non-instructional - the vacancies brought forward were from instruction. I’m worried we’ll put ourselves in a bind - we’re eroding ground zero for the college. 

    Michelle states that what we’re seeing is the result of inequity in how positions have been eliminated during budget cuts. Student Services and auxiliary were first to be cut and last to be restored. These positions are at critical phases and they have to be replaced. It’s something we have to think about when we make cuts. Instruction is where we get WISH and get revenue. Without services, this won't be the kind of place that people want to come and be a part of -- we are getting more students that have more students with basic needs. Conditions will deteriorate and we will have safety issues and issues with fraud because of lack of staffing. Students may not be engaged and it will impact the campus. Yes, it comes from faculty positions but other areas are important too. 

    Rob says he wants to add to this conversation re: proportionality. In our current process, we have not built in how we ensure balance. There has to be balance in how we allocate resources but we don't have a current mechanism for it. We make recommendations and Lloyd has final say and can make changes. If there is an area of the college that needs it more than any other area, the president will take it into account. With that, I do support moving forward with the motion. Adam says he understands people's concerns re: Music. If they don't have the position, they’ll get rid of Music. Aren't we here to sustain programs? Music is something to be concerned about. If we lose a Grounds Supervisor, we don't lose Grounds. We may need to look at it all again. Erik asks for additional comments or questions? 

    Erik says we will do a vote. Says there is a motion on the floor to send these top 5 to College Council. Someone asks if we can we do this without the maybes? Since we’re moving forward without the maybes. Erik states there is a motion on the floor right now. Debbie says she can comment on that or are we voting on the motion? Erik states we’re currently in discussion. Debbie states that if we do a revote, it's not necessary as we already voted for the top 5.  She doesn't want to do a revote as people already voted for their top 5. Erik says the vote could change from our discussion. There is a motion on the floor and asks for vote. 

    Vote is 17 yes and 5 no for moving top 5 to College Council. The motion carries.

    Eric Mendoza says DALA meets every Wednesday and he will get more input on the remaining 6-16 rankings. They had an emergency meeting for the top 5 last Monday. If you are counting on DALA for a vote today, they won't be able to vote on the next bucket. Doesn’t feel comfortable voting without DALA’s input. Tim states we characterized this as a poll -- we don't need to do the next bucket today. Rob says we are putting things in a bucket, not rank order. We’re making recommendations to College Council and the President so we can provide more feedback if necessary. If you don't feel comfortable doing the next 5, you can abstain until you get more feedback from your constituency. Debbie says if we truly are shared governance, it was virtually impossible to get feedback, given the changing rules that have taken place. We are representatives of our groups, and now we’re being asked to re-vote but not necessarily with people's feedback. Debbie is curious how many voting members are adequately prepared to represent constituents with “middle 5”, given that we didn't know and there are rules we didn't see before. 

    Erik says we can delay until next week and if a poll is not worthwhile, we should not move forward. A student representative says they talked about top 5 but they didn't get to middle so they’re also unsure. Elvin says he thinks we can wait -- He gets where Eric M. is coming from. We know the next round will be more discussion because it will be more tricky on how to move forward to move to the next 5. The pressure should not be on us - it should be on those who need to give us the numbers. Tina asks when the positions will be released. Erik W.says at this week’s BAC. Pam confirms and Erik W. confirms it’s on Thursday. Erik says it sounds like there is a motion to adjourn the meeting. Debbie clarifies that it sounds like we’re going to find out how many positions we will get on Thursday. If it's not a multiple of 5, then the voting for the middle 5 doesn't make sense. Pam says it’s not positions, it's dollars. Rob says we’re not waiting for the dollar amount to do this work. We have this process of getting these 16 high positions in 3 buckets. Once the amount of money is known, College Council and the President’s process will happen at the next level to decide what gets funded. 

    Tina says if we know how much funding there is, then we’ll have a certain amount left after the top 5. In theory, will they take the next 5 and possibly say we can only afford these top three?  Rob says we don’t know. We’re not doing that work. Erik says that for Classified positions, we’ll also check on the benefit amount. Tim says it would be instructive if we can look at the amount relative to what Foothill has to work with. Foothill just hired 10 new faculty positions. Rob says what they’re using for funding  at Foothill is not always parallel to our process at De Anza. There are times when we used money for positions different than Foothill. Tim says they are apples and oranges but they’re still fruit. At Foothill, it's different because they have separate committees. There are retirements and resignations. Pam says you can look into what numbers of people retired from Foothill and it might be different than De Anza. 

    Erik asks if  people want to do buckets or ranks? Tina questions if ultimately the second bucket ranking will happen with College Council and the President. Tim says that ranking is based on how many positions or how much money we have -- we can pick the ones that will fit within that budget. Tim says we can present. Rob states it sounds like people say we want to rank. Erik says we don't know the amount. Rob says  we don't know and it can depend based on benefits, steps, etc. Right now we can just do the buckets. Ultimately, this will go to College Council and the President. Tim says that when you're on a search committee and you end up with finalists, you don't rank the people. You forward the finalists. Same principle here. We don't want to second guess our ranking. If we only have relative funding for 3, they have the wiggle room. Erik says that we’re trying to build in wiggle room. Tina says we’re worried about how many positions. We know how valuable and important each of these 16 positions are. We’re having trouble letting go. College Council’s job is to  make that decision. Let's go with the bucket. 

    Rob makes a motion to move to the middle bucket next week. 11 votes for yes and 9 votes for no. Motion carried. 

    Meeting adjourned.

Documents and Links

Back to Top