General Meeting Information

Date: February 13, 2024
Time: 10:00-11:20
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
    10:00 - 10:05 Welcome and Introductions I
    10:05 - 10:10 Approval of Minutes from February 6 I/A
    10:10 - 11:20 1) Process Review: I/D
      2) Norms Review: I/D
      3) Budget Update on Available Funds for Hiring Allocation I/D
      4) Middle Bucket Disucssion and Approval
    Poll 2 (if needed)

    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information

  • Minutes [DRAFT]

    Attendance: Rob Mieso, Mallory Newell, Erik Woodbury, Michelle Hernandez, Andre Meggerson, Daniel Solomon, Ian Ang, Nicholas Turangan, Benjamin Furagganan, Izat Rasyad, Kate Wang, Tina Lockwood, Debbie Lee, Tim Shively, Sam Bliss, Adam Contreras, Adrienne Hypolite, Alicia De Toro, Anita Muthyala-Kandula, Bidya Subedi, Christina G. Espinosa-Pieb, Dave Capitolo, Diana Martinez, Dr. Elvin Ramos, Dr. Robert Alexander, Eric Mendoza, Erick Aragon, Gabriela Nocito, Hieu Nguyen, Lydia Hearn, Martin Varela, Mehrdad Khosravi, Dr. Melinda Hughes, Michele LeBleu Burns, Pam Grey, Randy Bryant, Thomas Ray, Vins Chacko

    Approval of Minutes: Approval of minutes from February 6. (Tim S. mentions there is a syntactical issue at some part of the minutes from last meeting - He can reach out to Denica to update.)

    Process Review: Rob shares screen with above link and reviews process steps. Says that the tri-chairs want to review the process to ensure we are all on the same page re: the process that we all agreed upon. Step 1 is knowing how much is available. Unfortunately it wasn't available initially, but now we have the numbers. Martin will talk about this today. Step 2 was covered when we did the training that took place in the Fall. Rob reads through Step 3 and 4. Step 5 is reviewing personnel requests. Highlights alignment with the College Goals (C.) and reminds group of the small group work did to determine the rankings. Continues through and says Step 8 to involve deans and managers came from feedback we got in the last round. In Step 9, we brought it back to the group. Now we are at Step 11 and we want to get to Step 12 today and make recommendations to College Council. We welcome feedback in terms of what’s been working and what doesn’t. Erik W. says we are really in Steps 9, 10, and 11 -- not just Step 11. We completed small group work. Asks for thoughts and comments. Mallory states there is College Council meeting this Thursday if people want to work towards that. Though there will always be another College Council meeting if we miss this week. 

    Norms Review: Norms review started by Rob with focus on #s 3 - 6. Rob reviews #3: States they intentionally did this last week as tri-chairs to ensure all voices be heard. For members if you have comments or questions, please raise your hand and as much as possible. Want to have direct conversation rather than putting things in the chat. Point #4: States we are committed to mutual respect and trust - avoid personal attacks. We are here to work for the college, students, and our constituencies. Point #5: Team discussion and consensus decision-making remains. Point #6: This is the communication piece - Reminds everyone that they are representing a constituency not themselves or a department/division. Members are the voice for their constituency. 

    Debbie wants to discuss point #5 about consensus decisions. That's a little unclear. When we say consensus, can we define that? There have been a number of close votes which she does not consider consensus. She’d like to know what that means in this body. Erik W. says as a facilitator, he looks for agreement. It's not that everyone agrees, but that there is broad agreement and there is no strong objection where someone feels it is unacceptable. There can’t be a strong objection. Tim asks the clarifying questions - Isn’t a vote what follows when we can not get consensus just to find out where it stood? 

    Debbie responds she hears that. However, when she sees 50/50 votes, that warrants a lot of discussion. In her mind, that doesn't mean consensus. There may have been some strong objections, but the committee is still moving forward with a simple majority. That is her concern. There have been decisions that have moved forward in that fashion. Rob references our procedures. Norms are broad principles. In procedures in #,5 we define consensus. If we don't come to an agreement, we have a voting mechanism. If we have broad agreement without any major objections to the position, we take it as a body and move forward. If not, there are times we’ve taken a vote. The general procedures show how we conduct business and run our affairs in this body. This is a good conversation to consider in terms or how we will continue. We can take a look and review what we’ve developed so far. 

    Budget Update on Available Funds for Hiring Allocation: Martin V presents on budget. States we started off last year 2023 with some funding sources - the first group that was available generated 1.5 million and the second group from February - June 2023 was generating 435,000. Then we added the SRP adjustments that were leftover, $364,000 --  having a beginning balance of $2.3 million. That’s what was available to RAPP to start allocation of some positions. RAPP allocated 17 positions which amounted to $1.6 million (estimated dollars) and then in College Council there were two additional positions approved to $250,000 leaving an ending balance in 2023 of $394,000. That was available to carry forward for the new year. 

    Last week, we provided what’s available on positions in 2023-2024, $934,000. That balance was added to carry forward -- leaving $1.3 million available for the new positions. Then we took the 5 positions that RAPP is recommending, we accounted for estimates, and that amounts to $633,000, leaving a remaining balance of $695,000 moving forward. These are estimates for these positions. The district does reconciliation at year end and will let us know the actual costs. At the end of this year, we will add any plus or minuses the district provides to us and will be reported as part of the ending balance. In addition to this summary, these positions - we have a schedule of them and how we estimated those dollars. Every year the faculty positions change in dollars - in 2023 it was $95,000 and 2024, it’s $102,000. These are salaries. The non-faculty estimates includes salary and benefits, which is different from faculty positions. Erik asks to look at the approved positions again. Martin confirms one is for 2023 and the other for 2024. 

    Tim says he has a suggestion for future. Asks if there is some way to look at what the cost was for the positions before we started voting; that might be important criteria to consider. Faculty went up to $102,000 but that’s the lowest of any of the positions that are listed. Martin responds that there is a notation here explaining that the district replaces faculty 1:1. And they only look at salaries, not benefits. That’s why it looks lower, while the non-faculty includes salary and benefits. Mallory reminds the group that we do include the estimated amount when a position comes in to be requested - it’s part of the form that is submitted. For the faculty positions, we usually just get the estimated number. This information was on the reconciliation spreadsheet so we had the information when we did the small group work. Pam points out that the faculty position that is $102,000 is a 10-month vs some of the others are 12-month positions. 

    Erik asks if the $102,000 is only an estimate based on step placement. Martin confirms and says they are estimated at Step 4. Erik asks if this is the “safe bet” placement and what we do if someone places higher. Martin says if the committee wants to estimate higher, we can. Confirms these figures are from the district. Tim also mentions that it may have gone up due to COLA and Martin confirms. Rob says we have close to 700k to work with. Lydia confirms if the $102,000 is what we have to budget for when we consider positions or will the district charge us more than that? Martin responds it’s a faculty positions we’re replacing, so we estimate $102,000 and confirms the district will take care of the rest. 

    Middle Bucket Discussion and Approval Poll 2 (if needed) - Mallory: Mallory reminds us we are doing a 1st and 2nd priority bucket. We are not ranking. We’ll continue the discussion we started last week re: the positions put forward in the poll. We are discussing the position and if they should move buckets but we are not discussing the process today. We will talk about that another time. Going back to the poll, in first position with 20 “yes” votes is ESCI position. Second highest 3 positions with similar number of “yes” votes: 

    MUSIC - 15 votes, AUTO - 14 votes, SOCIOLOGY - 14 votes  

    The next three are: EQUITY FACULTY DIRECTOR - 12 votes, CETH - 12 votes, CHEM - 11 votes 

    Leftover positions: Custodial and Grounds, CIS, HUMI  

    We may have to move things out of the bucket if we go over. Mallory says we’ll start with ESCI for discussion. Andre raises question and confirms if VISUAL ARTS is on this list. Mallory confirms it was not at the top of the poll last time. Andre also asks to confirm the percentages on the board. Bidya asks when we’re going around the room, what are we discussing or asking? Is it to support or talk more about each position? Mallory responds it can be both. You can voice interest in keeping it in the second bucket or maybe concerns or ideas of moving it to another bucket. Mallory moves to the Administrators group. Michele L. states the importance of subject matter - we’re living in an age of climate change and we do need to maintain this program so students can study this area. This is a critical position. There have been changes with loss of faculty and doesn’t want to see this program die. Asks if Debbie has any input. Debbie agrees with Michele and based on her constituency, this position should stay in this bucket. For Classified Professionals, Andre says they’re good and support the position. 

    For Affinity Groups, Melinda says BFSA discussed CETH and EQUITY OFFICE positions. As our campus has been talking a lot about equity, they’re surprised none of these positions rose to the top. They are in favor of those two positions moving forward. Mallory asks if BFSA has comments on ESCI and Melinda says no. For APASA, Erik A. has no comments but are in support of ESCI. Eric M. has no comments or questions. Mallory confirms that Michelle Hernandez will replace Elvin as the EAC rep and Michelle says EAC supports the ESCI position. For Faculty, Tim says FA is in support of the position and Daniel also expresses support of the position.Students also voice support of the position. Student reps also show support of this position. On the board, Mallory asks Erik to put ESCI in the second bucket. Tim says he is wondering as it got 83%, if anyone who didn’t vote for it has comments as to why they didn’t rank it higher. Tina responds that she didn’t rank it because she ranked CETH and EQUITY in the top 5. Refers to Debbie’s comments that while there are Faculty who can teach the course, they are not specifically CETH Faculty, so that is concerning. And the Office of Equity does need a faculty director. Tina says she thinks supporting the Equity Office will close the equity gap for everyone. Mallory states we have ESCI in the bucket. Moves on to next positions: 


    For Administrators, Debbie states that in our bucket of top 5, there are 4 out of 5 positions that are not faculty so they don't generate apportionment. So we’re looking at positions that would provide more enrollment and balance out the apportionment that was not given in the top 5 bucket. States they do have issues with the MUSIC position and heard some unsubstantiated comments about music dying and people not being supportive of the program if they didn't vote for it. We have to go back and look at the data. Thanks Andre for bringing up example of Sculpture also not having FT faculty at all either. We are now wondering about VIS ARTS and that position. It behooves us to hear substantiated comments backed by data rather than saying things based on what we think. Michele L. agrees. States that Sociology is a “workhorse” that gives us enrollment - we support that. We have students who take it for their major and GE. This is separate but wants to point to CETH that will have huge amounts of enrollment because of students who have to take these because of state requirements. 

    For Classified, Andre says in their constituency, they only question why MUSI and VIS ARTS AND DESIGN were not switched knowing the numbers. We had more questions about these positions being switched. For SOC and AUTO TECH, they haven’t had any disagreement yet. 

    Tina says they did talk about AUTO TECH, as the college has invested in the baccalaureate program and they are a big draw. It’s a very important program,  important but they don't serve every single student. For APASA, Erik A. says CETH and EQUITY ranked above MUSIC similar to BFSA and supports focusing on equity and social justice. APASA constituency thought it was important to prioritize. For DALA, Eric M. said that SOC, AUTO TECH, and CETH were high on their list as well. Particularly for AUTO TECH, strong numbers for Latinx community. Those were the positions that stood out for them in this bucket. For BFSA, Melinda says comment stands to support CETH and Equity Office positions. For EAC, Michelle says they did talk about AUTO TECH and MUSIC did not rise to our TOP 5 so they moved that out of their conversation and AUTO TECH and the Custodial Supervisor positions were tied at the bottom. They gave CETH and EQUITY OFFICE top billing. Based on discussion, they’d choose those. 

    For Faculty, Erik W. states his advocacy for MUSIC. Doesn’t think the claims are unsubstantiated. A decade ago the enrollment was 3,666 and 64% of their classes were taught by FT Faculty. Now, enrollment is 462, a decrease of 87% over the last decade. Full-time faculty went from 64% to 16%. The qualitative data is there. We’re slowly strangling the program and it happens every year. Has seen the same at IPBT and it’s been the same for 10 years. Does not want to argue about the importance and doesn’t think we can continue this year after year. Says we can not offer the same courses we did a year ago because we don’t have the faculty. Believes we are in a crisis. Tim also states that MUSIC is shaky right now. The one FT faculty member is considering Article 18 because he’s burned out. References the previous administrator and says they ransacked the program. Says we need programmatic equity - If we don’t have programs that exist, we can’t do equity work. It’s the same reason we support ESCI - because we need a FT Faculty in that position. We need more than 1 person in MUSIC and with SOC it’s the same story in a shorter time frame - from 3 FT Faculty last year to 1 this year. Daniel says that it has one faculty member and puts the program in danger. There are programs out there with 1 or no faculty members. It's a clear candidate as a program that can do more if we help it out. 

    Robert A. says Counseling and Advising based their decisions on FTE students and how it corresponds to FTE faculty. SOCIOLOGY, MUSIC, ESCI and the Equity Office are at the forefront. For students, they say there is advocacy for AUTO TECH due to the Baccalaureate program. Have questions re: the Equity Office position and what the role entails. Mallory summarizes that there is some advocacy for MUSIC  from Faculty. And then some questions about its “high” ranking from Administrators, Classified, EAC, and Affinity Groups. 

    For AUTO, there are some questions from Administrators and Classified, though DALA, EAC and students support the position. For SOC, Admin, DALA, and there Classified said they would vote VIS ARTS over that position. Should we have additional discussion about these 3. Michelle H. says EAC supports SOC over VISUAL ARTS and MUSIC. Mallory states there is currently no clear winner. Tina says that Classified are in agreement with the AUTO TECH position. Rob suggests we take each one for discussion since we don’t have consensus. 

    AUTO TECH - Is there any objection to moving this into the bucket? 

    Erik suggests  we can put 8 things into the bucket and take what we take out. Tina says she is feeling hesitant. Erik asks if maybe we can call this the first round and then trim it down. Tina asks if we can skip ahead and come back. Erik asks if there is anything we feel comfortable putting in the bucket. Tim replies we can go bottom up and see if there are any positions we haven’t heard any advocacy for yet. Mallory asks if we want to move to focus on CHEM, CETH, and EQUITY OFFICE and possibly moving them up. Daniel asks if we are looking at 6 positions to go into the second bucket? Sam also points out to answer student question re: the Equity Office position. Erik responds that yes, it will be roughly 6 depending on the Custodial position. 

    Michelle H. responds re: the Equity Office position and says this position works with Faculty on coaching, training, and equitable practices in classrooms. It extends to pedagogy and how they teach, attendance policies, grading, and other entrenched work. As administrators, she can’t do that work. For issues such as curriculum and textbooks, administrators need a Faculty member. Sam adds that they would work with OPD and Online Learning - this impacts students directly. 

    Mallory moves discussion to Equity Office, CETH, and CHEM. For Administrators, Debbie says CETH is a new requirement at the UC and CSU. It will be a requirement just as much as English and Math would be. We have no full-time Faculty heading up this department at all. Right now, the CETH are taught by PT Faculty. The data looks like there is a FT person because they teach Multicultural Art History, but that doesn't meet CETH requirements. Even for the De Anza GE Pattern for our AA, there’s hardly anyone to do this work. We do not have Faculty to do a lot of this work with this new requirement. With our Equity Plan, this was part of our process to ensure position requests align with our educational master plan. If we want to improve equity gaps, we need someone in the Equity Office to help faculty. We have to teach differently - how do we change what we’ve been doing for years and years and it hasn't worked. 

    Touches on requirements - sometimes the state imposes changes on us. Some of it is how we transfer out our programs and is bringing this up because in re: to the MUSIC program, there are different requirements for the Transfer Degree and it's hard to get what this degree is asking for. And if you look at what the state has imposed on the program re: the MUSIC and in general what the state imposes. Mallory asks to limit comments to 5 minutes. 

    Erik asks groups if we can extend for 10 minutes and all agree. Erik asks when we talk about requirements from the state, does it include other departments? Asks if there are full-timers in those departments. Can you talk about those departments support the requirements? Debbie says she will take that question after everyone’s had a chance to talk, and confirms that there are 4 departments - 2 departments have full-timers. For Classified, Tina states they support CETH because of its requirements, because there is no one in that position currently, and because there are only 2 full-timers. Equity is big on their list. As an institution, they think the Equity Office position is important and that the department needs someone to help faculty. There’s groups around the country trying to undermine this work and if we truly believe it's important, we need to bolster this department. Andre states it’s in our values listed on our mission page and should reflect in our decisions. Melinda agrees that we talk about equity and inclusion, but if no one does the work, we are being hypocritical. Sometimes for students, classes (in Ethnic Studies) not always offered. AFAM for example is only offered one quarter. BFSA stands by CETH and Equity Office positions. For APASA, Erik A. agrees with Melinda. Sociology was also unanimous. 

    For DALA, Eric M comments that they had CHEM as top 5 because hiring another faculty member may diversify the offerings. They felt that many employees of color are not represented in these spaces -- referring to the efforts to improve Custodial and Grounds. They believe strongly that RAPP and College Council needs to re-look at taking Equity positions “off the top” - several were not even brought to IPBT. In the future when RAPP looks at the position, we don’t have to keep voting for Equity positions. For EAC, Michelle H. says CETH and Equity Office positions are in the top 2 to move forward. For Faculty, Tim states after considering which positions and helping departments stave off catastrophe, and then student demand, he thinks CHEMISTRY is the highest. He would move that up to replace AUTO TECH, based on Debbie’s comments. Alicia also wants to bring up CHEM, since it's a requirement for transfer. 

    For students, Izat comments that the Office of Equity position is important and has a broad impact on campus. The CETH position fulfills a requirement but that requirement can also be fulfilled from other classes. When brought up in the senate, there was concern with the IGETC requirement. Many students are not interested in taking the class above the requirement. A good half of the room or more than half may need to take the CHEM -- given the fact that a lot of students need to take it, it would bring in more enrollment, that is the position that they’re leaning towards. 

    Mallory states at this time there is clear support for one position - ESCI. Erik comments it sounds like SOC doesn’t have any objections. Students ask if we are voting for 5 or 8 in the bucket? Erik says he’ll put SOC in the bucket. Mallory proposes the Equity Office position as there was broad support. Tim expresses reservation as it would displace something else. So the Equity Office position is in the bucket with an asterisk. Erik states it didn't sound like there was a split for AUTO TECH? Daniel responds it’s relative to if it displaces another position. Erik confirms we can decide to put 6 in the bucket. Tina comments she thinks AUTO TECH should be in the #2 bucket. This is a way to help a whole genre of people earn a good living where it's super expensive. We have an amazing program to help people have great careers and can support their families. Andre proposes to squeeze 6 in the bucket of 5. 

    Mallory states CETH seems to be getting a lot of support. Tina agrees. Michelle H. says EAC supports CETH. All affinity groups reps express support. Erik states he’s not arguing it’s not important, but is CETH the most important? Erik Music is a “need to have” and CETH is a “great to have.” Tim says he would support CETH as long as MUSIC also is in the bucket. Daniel agrees the same with CETH as #5 and MUSIC at #6. Students say they don't want it but would not strongly object to CETH position. Mallory says currently the bucket is: 







    For Classified, Andre states he doesn’t support the MUSIC position, using the rationale re: #s and dropping there were 5 and now they’re down to 1. Sculpture had 1 and now we have 0 -- there are students who can't graduate because of this. If we’re using this rationale, then we should support a VISUAL ARTS position. Perspective as someone who works in the division, if asked to make a choice, would not put MUSIC over VIS ARTS and DESIGN. Erik asks about 

    Erik asks if Andre’s constituents would be okay with this decision and Andre responded he would need to ask them but for now, his vote is no. Tina asks questions about timelines. Erik states if Music is not included, then it will not work for him. Student rep also expresses they don’t agree with the middle 2 bucket as it is. Students say they would like to put CHEM in the bucket. Mallory says we will more ESCI forward. Tim suggests to shrink the bucket and move 4 forward. For MUSIC and CETH we can deal with it next time. 





    Meeting is adjourned.

Documents and Links

Back to Top