General Meeting Information
Date: October 11,
Time: 1:30 - 3:00 p.m.
Location: ADM 109
Time Topic Purpose Discussion Leader 1:30 p.m. Review Agenda & Notes I/D/A Mieso 1:35 p.m. Shared Governance Overview I/D Robles 1:45 p.m. Reorganization Presentation Review & Update I/D/A Mieso 2:15 p.m. Reorganization Discussion I/D/A All 3:00 p.m. Adjourn
A = Action
D = Discussion
I = Information
SSPBT Goals & Priorities 2017-18
- Integrated SSSP-Student Equity-BSI plan
- Accreditation, Self-Study, Enrollment Budget Update
- Pathways & Promises
- Title IX
Members: Avila, Booye, DASB (B. Tanubrata) , Glapion, Kirkpatrick, LeBleu-Burns, Mandy, Mieso (co-chair), Robles (co-chair), Shears, Shively, Wethington, White-Daniels
Attending Members: Booye, Glapion, LeBleu-Burns, Mandy, Mieso (co-chair), Robles (co-chair), Shears, Shively, Wethington, White-Daniels
Guests: Lisa Castro, Michael Fosnaugh, Kimberly Fukuyama, Melinda Hughes, Lorna Maynard, Chrissy Parker
There were no amendments to the agenda and one made to the notes.
Shared Governance Overview
Robles provided an overview about the shared governance process and the role of the SSPBT. PBTs give members the opportunity to be involved in campus decisions through their input, feedback, and serve in an advisory capacity. SSPBT doesn’t make the final decision. SSPBT makes the recommendation to College Council and ultimately decisions go through Senior Staff and the President makes the final decision. Robles mentioned that he did clarify this with the President before the meeting.
SSPBT -> College Council -> Senior Staff -> President -> District
Reoganization Presentation Review & Update
Mieso reviewed some of the information from last year:
District deficit = $17.6 million
De Anza target = $8.8 million
Target for PBTs:
- SSPBT = $3,207,000
- 10% of fund 14
- 36% budget reduction
- IPBT = $4,625,000
- 82% of fund 14
- 53% budget reduction
- APBT = $792,000
- 5% of fund 14
- 9% budget reduction
In addition to Option I that was reviewed last week, Option II was introduced for review. Option II would achieve the same goals set by Option I:
- Eliminate 2 management positions: $382,912
(AVPSS and Dean of Counseling)
- Save 2 counselor positions: $274,026
- Save 1 classified A & R position: $108,886
- Met Student Services reduction target: $3,207,000
- Total eliminated positions: 10 faculty, 11.5 classified, 2 managers
Option l: Consolidation of Counseling & Student Development/EOPS
Option ll: Consolidation of Counseling & Disability Support Programs and Services
White-Daniels had a question about the slides that showed Administrative positions that had “duties cannot be managed by another manager.” White-Daniels stated that she has looked at the historical records and other schools and most of these areas could be assigned to a director who is then managed by a Dean. Usually the Dean of Counseling is the one managing other areas such as DSPS.
White-Daniels also wanted to clarify the duties of the Counseling Chair. The chair cannot do all the work stated on the PowerPoint slide and faculty does not perform the role of an administrator. The faculty provides assistance to the Dean and does not take away work from the Dean.
White-Daniels stated that the historical changes in Counseling over the last 7 years have been directed by the leadership of Senior Staff. The Dean of DSPS or Enrollment services can be eliminated if you are looking to save 2 Counselors. White-Daniels suggested a third option to eliminate the Dean of Enrollment Services and to consolidate Counseling with Admissions & Records.
LeBleu-Burns stated that she has been working in the school system for about 30 years and Counseling is always over DSPS and a manager can run DSPS. LeBleu-Burns also thought a third plan should be considered.
Discussion arose around how the Dean of DSPS would be paid if they were managing a non-categorical area such as Counseling. With many areas, the funding needs to be split between fund 14 and categorical, such as the Dean of Student Development/EOPS. The savings might not be as much as planned if this wasn’t taken into account. There was concern voting on the two options unless everyone was properly informed on how this would work with the budget and what the impact on the students would be without a Counseling Dean.
White-Daniels felt like this was a done deal. The only options are the options presented and the alternative options brought forward will not be considered. This will now be in the hands of the College Council.
Mieso responded that the fund 14 savings is part of the purpose of the reorganization. The Dean of DSPS is in fund 22 and not 14 so we would not have savings with the elimination of that position. The Dean of Enrollment position has already been discussed and the position needed to be filled due to the critical nature of the position for college operations and funding. The fund 14 savings can only come from the Dean of Counseling position. Mieso said he was charged with the reorganization from the President and the options brought to SSPBT for discussion, input, and feedback are the only viable options. There will only be two options to vote on today before the recommendation goes to College Council.
The vote on the two options was held:
- Option l: Consolidation of Counseling & Student Development/EOPS
- 1 Yes
- 4 No
- 6 Abstained
- Option ll: Consolidation of Counseling & Disability Support Programs and Services
- 2 Yes
- 3 No
- 6 Abstained
The determination was that there was no consensus from the SSPBT committee on the two reorganization proposals that were presented.
- SSPBT = $3,207,000