June 8, 2023

Approval of May 18, 2023 Minutes

Agenda item tabled.

---

Measure G Project 213 (Restroom Renovations at S2, S6, L5)

The Campus facilities committee is bringing this item on restroom renovations at S2, S6 and L5, noting that a taskforce was established at the April 18 facilities committee. Some topics discussed by the Committee was the overall project as it is defined under measured G, the existing restroom buildings that were prioritized for renovation based on infrastructure deterioration and accessibility upgrades and need for all-gender toilets. Mahato further showed locations on map and presented five options from the architect.

Recommendation to College Council is as follows:

1. The Measure G Bond project shall proceed with Option 1b as the restroom layout option in some or all locations identified within the project charter, which is existing restroom buildings S2, S6 and L5.  
             • The selection of Option 1b will include that each renovated restroom location will be a                   multi-  stall, all-gender (gender neutral) restroom with full height partitions.  
             • There will also be one ADA all-gender restroom separate from the multistall facility as                    shown  in the sketch.  
             • As discussed at College Council – this will eliminate the staff only restrooms.
2. College administration will coordinate with the district to identify additional funding to                   renovate a minimum of 2 buildings (4 restrooms) or all 3 buildings (6 restrooms).  
3. Should the college and district find funding for all 3 existing restroom buildings, S2, S6, and L5,then the project will commence immediately.  
4. Should the college and district find funding only for 1 or 2 buildings, then the locations of              which two buildings will be identified with the support of a campuswide survey. Meaning, the      campus community would help identify if S2, S6 or L5 would get renovated.  
   

Members discussed concerns on high priority to renovate, location, changing tables (required by code), child protection seats, lactation spaces and more funding. Mahato expressed appreciation for student participation in this project.

Recommendation approved.  

---

Educational Master Plan

Newell provided background and update on the Educational Master Plan noting that it has been previously approved by College Council and will be taking it to the board for approval at the June 12 meeting. The EMP is the result of a year long process, which included over 200 participants that provided feedback and helped develop the plan. Newell shared implementation on the plan--the tri chairs developed the idea that to identified leaders across campus and invite them to join one of the initiative groups. Please see page 25 of the plan for more information.

---

Measure G Megaproject Taskforce Update

The taskforce did a site visit of locations of the campus, and started a wish list of different ideas of what to do with the money, more work to follow. The taskforce met with President Holmes to clarify some of the confusion regarding the letter received from VC Cheu and established to determine a timeline in response to that letter. Holmes expressed appreciation to the taskforce for the questions put forward and the hard and thoughtful work they do.

---

Classified Professionals Vision to Encourage Participation in Shared Governance and Leadership Committees Update

Garcia shared an update regarding the college engagement process and asked if any attendees would like to join the summer process to continue working on the plan. Garcia clarified that this work is regarding the vision on how to motivate classified professionals to engage on campus. Holmes noted the caring campus initiative and asked if classified are receiving any feedback from those meetings, highlighting that classified participating presented a list of recommendations that were fantastic. Garcia noted that classified members have been engaged but does not have a list of those members participating and would love to see those ideas.  

A few members volunteered via chat, Garcia to follow up with them.

---

CSEA Resolution

Garcia noted that Classified Senate passed the solidarity resolution on May 23 and proceeded to read the document. The resolution will be presented at the June 12 Board Meeting. Attendee expressed concerns on hiring classified staff without supervisors--supervision in place is needed. When Garcia asked, what support is needed to support that moving forward, Mahato advised to look at the list that RAPP that was put forward, noting the positions that were considered low need. Mahato highlighted that classified professionals deserve the time to have positive, productive, and growth opportunities.

Jaeger-Balm noted that Academic Senate passed this resolution almost immediately. There was discussion of the need of classified professionals, supervisor positions and the workload of certain positions. Garcia will reach out to Rodriguez, Grey and other classified professionals to start conversations (with the intention and vision of the resolution) to learn more about the concerns expressed and help contribute towards finding solutions.  Garcia noted that the document was created by the staff but with members' concerns, it will need to be consulted furthermore. 

---

Academic Senate (Introduce New Academic Senate Officers)

This is Jaeger-Balm's last college council meeting as chair, assuming no additional meetings are called before the end of year. The new Academic Senate officers are Academic Senate President Erik Woodbury and Vice President Patty Guitron. Guitron will be the College Council tri-chair starting in July 2023. 

---

RAPP (Resource Allocation and Program Planning)

Personnel Ranking from RAPP

Woodbury shared the personnel hiring recommendation list and noted looking at dollar amount vacancies/resignations created to allocate for personnel instead of by positions. RAPP invited people to submit requests. There were 56 requests received- RAPP then did two-round evaluation process in small groups and groups initially ranked positions individually, each position was ranked by two groups, if those two groups agreed-- that was the ranking (high, moderate, low), if those groups did not agree- they got together on a second round and reconcile.

There was discussion on the process of money allocation, campus needs, overall evaluation, critical needs and classified/ faculty positions. Members highlighted process and transparency and asked for more insight on some of the challenges in RAPP. Woodbury noted that one of the challenges they faced was solidifying a plan, noting the function norms and charge and process and hiring. Woodbury noted that once requests were received, chairs met to set up the initial review process - 8 groups of 3 members, each had 14 positions to review--off set by 7, each position was ultimately looked at by two groups. The review was 1) if positions were required by law/accreditation, it would go under high priority. 2) Alignment and completeness- form filled out completely and in alignment with EMP and equity plan reimagined (if it did not pass- it was set aside and removed from list). 3) Multi-step discussion process. 

Woodbury shared that some of feedback and questions received included opportunity for more time for reflections/questions, who is doing review of specific positions – fairness, and concerns of possible unfairness advantage in recommendations and clarity on rubric. Other members noted more support needed for people doing the writing portion of the request.  

Chair noted that specific positions not included in the recommended list should not be advocated for in College Council but rather in RAPP meetings. Attendees expressed concerns in the hiring process and evaluating requests. Given that all five students voted against this list moving forward, new resolution from CSEA and Classified Senate, Jaeger-Balm asked for an emergency College Council meeting to be scheduled with this single item on the third or fourth week of June. Woodbury noted meeting with Huang to follow up on student hesitancy.  

Holmes expressed gratitude to RAPP for the work they did, being intentional in the process they followed, and the recommendation brought to college council. Holmes agreed to schedule a special meeting if necessary.  

Members voted to approve the 19 positions recommended by RAPP.
8 No, 5 Yes, 1 Abstention 

Recommendation not approved.

Woodbury asked for any feedback to be shared with to the committee. 
 
CTE Perkins 2023-2024 Budget Proposal 

Chacko asked for approval on the proposed list. The proposal was approved by the CTE committee and RAPP committee and needs to be submitted by June 15.  

Members voted to approve the recommended budget proposal

---

Holmes announced that a special meeting will be scheduled on June 22, with a one item agenda: Personnel Ranking from RAPP

---

Report-outs

Please read and share with your constituents.